On 11.05.2021 19:38, John Crispin wrote:
On 11.05.21 19:34, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
I'm happy to see C code, but this implementation still doesn't address
any of my comments I posted in the
Re: [PATCH v2] rtl83xx-poe: add package
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/openwrt/patch/20210313165419.10713-1-bj...@mork.no/#2666485
I strongly believe we need a more generic solution. A tiny framework
with generic PoE imlementation and then rtl83xx support on top of that.
agreed, but for now this makes PoE work for the community. the next step will
be to move this into kernel space using the appropriate subsystems, however
that will take time and effort.
the aim of the patch is to get support functional out of the box for the
community and then address the real solution afterwards.
This never works. When we commit hacks like this to the repo they stay
for years or for ever. Once you commit this we'll see uci defaults for
PoE. Then LuCI module. Cleaning that up later will require a lot more
planning to avoid breaking existing setups.
Developing this as a tiny subsystem really won't take much more time.
How much can it be? Two days?
I'm really tired of dealing with such hacky solutions. Look at netifd,
DSA and LuCI as example. We ended up with something that noone fully
understands. Jo - our UI guru - couldn't deal with designing a proper
UI for that f*cked config syntax.
_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
