(Readded: Hauke Mehrtens <ha...@hauke-m.de>) On Saturday, January 20, 2018 5:40:08 PM CET Ben Greear wrote: > > On 01/20/2018 02:15 AM, Christian Lamparter wrote: > > On Friday, January 19, 2018 10:06:50 PM CET Ben Greear wrote: > >> On 01/19/2018 01:03 PM, Christian Lamparter wrote: > >>> On Friday, January 19, 2018 9:12:04 PM CET gree...@candelatech.com wrote: > >>>> From: Ben Greear <gree...@candelatech.com> > >>>> > >>>> This will allow us to select the CT IPQ4019 firmware instead if > >>>> desired. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Ben Greear <gree...@candelatech.com> > >>>> --- > >>>> package/firmware/ipq-wifi/Makefile | 2 +- > >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>>> > >>>> diff --git a/package/firmware/ipq-wifi/Makefile > >>>> b/package/firmware/ipq-wifi/Makefile > >>>> index 519e8c9..6690248 100644 > >>>> --- a/package/firmware/ipq-wifi/Makefile > >>>> +++ b/package/firmware/ipq-wifi/Makefile > >>>> @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ define Package/ipq-wifi-default > >>>> SUBMENU:=ath10k IPQ4019 Boarddata > >>>> SECTION:=firmware > >>>> CATEGORY:=Firmware > >>>> - DEPENDS:=@TARGET_ipq806x +ath10k-firmware-qca4019 > >>>> + DEPENDS:=@TARGET_ipq806x > >>>> TITLE:=Custom Board > >>>> endef > >>>> > >>> > >>> Wait! I remember talking about this here in the RFC thread: > >>> <https://www.mail-archive.com/lede-dev@lists.infradead.org/msg09621.html> > >>> |Hm, this would break the WIFI in the default configuration for the > >>> |FritzBox 4040 image. Currently it only has a dependency on the > >>> |ipq-wifi-fritz4040. (So it will end up without a firmware-5.bin) > >>> > >>> What gives? Are you trying to break the AVM FRITZ!Box 4040 image on > >>> purpose? > >> > >> Of course I'm not trying to break anything. But, I am not sure how to > >> fix this properly. > > I remember writing about this too. It's in the reply. > > <https://www.mail-archive.com/lede-dev@lists.infradead.org/msg09626.html> > > |I think there's a another way to do this. But it will require to break with > > |the existing convention of adding the board-2.bin that comes with the > > |firmware repository to the ath10k-firmware-qca4019 file. > > | > > |This way, the custom board-2.bin will stay in place when you switch/update > > |the firmware-5.bin. > > | > > |(The board-2.bin for the reference boards can simply be packaged just like > > |one of the ipq-wifi board firmwares). And furhtermore, you could provide a > > |"easy to use/install" custom ipq-wifi.ipk for the board-2.bin you currently > > |host on your webside. > > Of course, if you have a better idea let's hear it too. You could look into > > making virtual packages (Don't know, if that's a thing with opkg, or not. > > So watch out!) or go a different route. I'm sure there's plenty of ways to > > do it. If you come up with something, I'll be happy to test it. > > > >> Does each platform need to specifically enable a firmware target instead of > >> depending on a DEPENDS statement to make it work? > > From what I know, the platform (ipq806x) does not add any firmware packages > > to > > DEFAULT_PACKAGES in the target/linux/ipq806x/Makefile. It's all > > "per-device". > > > > (That said, you might want to talk to Sven Eckelmann too. As he has added > > the ath10k-firmware-qca4019 package to the OpenMesh a42's DEVICE_PACKAGES. > > So, if ath10k-ct is selected on a a42 it will also include the (now useless) > > ath10k-firmware-qca4019, right?) > > > >> Is there some other way I can provide an option for two different firmware > >> binaries? > > The firmware binaries (i.e. firmware-X.bin) are not the problem. It's the > > "board-2.bin" files that are shipped by the ath10k-firmware-qca4019/9984/.. > > packages. > > Maybe you could test the 3 -v2 patches I posted on your 4019 device and see if > you can select -ct firmware? > > The board.bin issue would be the same with -ct or stock 4019 firmware AFAIK, > so if that is still an issue, it is a separate one.
Done. It looks like the ath10k-ct & ct-firmware used to work but was broken by: <https://git.openwrt.org/?p=openwrt/openwrt.git;a=commit;h=021b96d7c5c668fbcb5375c65cee90832bb2854f> |rootfs: remove unnecessary and potentially harmful force flags from opkg call | |Especially --force-overwrite and --force-depends will often lead to broken |images; it's better to fail the build in such cases than to silently ignore |the errors. | |Instead, ignore errors in the per-device rootfs opkg remove command, so |the build doesn't break when packages can't be removed because of |dependencies. | |Signed-off-by: Matthias Schiffer <mschif...@universe-factory.net> Is this correct, if so this should be fixed one way or another. Regards, Christian _______________________________________________ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev