[OpenWrt-Devel] Proposal: Differentiating "skinny" platforms from others...

[Michael Richardson]

I think that CONFIG_SKINNY is a good concept, but for all the reasons you
cite:

Abuse Department <abuse at redfish-solutions.com> wrote:
    > Some of us work with more current machines that are also more capable,
    > realizing that eventually machines with 32MB of DRAM and 128MB of Flash
    > will “age out” through failure and scarcity.

    > By then we’ll have a new “normal” about what the minimum expectations
    > are, and the conversation will continue, but with different
    > parameters.

    > Understanding that the definition of a “skinny” machine isn’t today
    > what it was 5 years ago, and that it won’t be the same again in another
    > 5 years, I’d like to proposal a CONFIG_ symbol that denotes that a
    > platform is in a class of constrained architectures.

it seems that SKINNY should be an integer of some kind, not a boolean.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     mcr at sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [


_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel