From 055763f3121dd4a514ec4b56f3ffb9af694aabf8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: mooleshacat <43627985+mooleshacat@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2026 20:44:08 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] brain +15 wrinkles from inline thinking breakthrough - re: reverse engineering / parallel reconstruction --- .../boot/dts/qcom/qcom-ipq4019-tew-829dru.dts | 17 +++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/target/linux/ipq40xx/files-6.12/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/qcom-ipq4019-tew-829dru.dts b/target/linux/ipq40xx/files-6.12/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/qcom-ipq4019-tew-829dru.dts index a3c530b437..80d5900e71 100644 --- a/target/linux/ipq40xx/files-6.12/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/qcom-ipq4019-tew-829dru.dts +++ b/target/linux/ipq40xx/files-6.12/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/qcom-ipq4019-tew-829dru.dts @@ -566,18 +566,19 @@ edma { We are utilizing the known possible configuration for the exact same hardware from upstream to make conclusions regarding the mfr configuration ANSWER: mdio@90000 in upstream matches mdio@90000 in mfr and is a switch. This must be the QCA8075 - that leaves the unknown switch to be the QCA8337 + that leaves the unknown switch to be the QCA8337 - mooleshacat detected mouse :3 QUESTIONS: - - where is the QCA8337? - - how is the QCA8337 initialized by the mfr? Does it matter given (see below) ? - - given both upstream and mfr use exact same hardware (QCA8337 & QCA8075) can we configure ours like upstream instead of mfr? - - to me this indicates both switches are compatible with both configurations - - if we do that , what are the possible negative effects? - - we would still require them to end up connected to gmac1 + - where is the QCA8337? ((cat caught mouse :3)) + - how is the QCA8337 initialized by the mfr? Does it matter given (see below)? ((NO)) + - given both upstream and mfr use exact same hardware (QCA8337 & QCA8075) can we configure ours like upstream instead of mfr? ((PROBLY)) + - to me this indicates both switches are compatible with both configurations - side-by-side and daisy-chained ((YES IANDI AGREE)) + - if we do that , what are the possible negative effects? ((IM AN IDIOT I DONT KNOW HARDWARE ADDRESS SAME AS MFR WE COOL RIGHT BRO)) + - we would still require them to end up connected to gmac1 ((YES SWITCHES NEED INTERCOMMUNICATION, AND SECURITY CONCERNS REMAIN SEPARATED)) NOTE RE: ADDRESS SPACE CONFLICTS: -the table is corrected, instead of deleting upstream mdio@9000 (QCA8075) we should use it as it is, and connect the QCA8337 daisy chained as upstream does - disregarding mfr - though still needs to be connected to gmac1/eth1 +the table has been corrected, instead of deleting upstream mdio@9000 (QCA8075) we should use it as it is, and connect the QCA8337 daisy chained as upstream does - disregarding mfr. +though still needs same HARDWARE ADDRESS as mfr and to be connected to gmac1/eth1 to keep security concerns separated as mfr does if we do not add the proprietary LED controller (why would we?) we free up that space for the QCA8337