On 2016-01-28 23:48, Pushpal Sidhu wrote: > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Felix Fietkau <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 2016-01-28 22:34, Pushpal Sidhu wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 3:19 AM, Bastian Bittorf <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> * Pushpal Sidhu <[email protected]> [28.01.2016 11:06]: >>>>> Adds < 4k to ipk. >>>> >>>> can you explain your usecase? >>>> how much does the binary grow? >>> >>> Usecase for iproute2 can support is to allow SocketCAN configuration >>> through the 'ip' command. E.g. >>> ip link set can0 type can bitrate 250000 listen-only off >>> ip link set can0 up >>> >>> The 'ip' binary grows by 4k (same as ipk). From 187k to 191k. >> I'd say CAN is a rare use case and mostly used on devices that have lots >> of storage already. Can you give me a good reason why it should be added >> to the tiny version of iproute2? > > I can't. This was really more of an RFC, but I forgot to label it as > such. I'm not a fan of how this patch is done in the first place. The > only way to bypass this from a menuconfig pov is to enable ip-full > (which bumps the size up to 275.5k), there really isn't an incremental > way to do this. Should I add a menuconfig (say, IP_CONFIG_CAN) that > will build in canbus support when not building the full version? Is the full version really too much for your builds?
- Felix _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
