On 10/12/2018 05:26 PM, Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant wrote: > Peoples! > > I've had these two commits lurking in my tree for ages, never having > quite got the courage up to commit the darn things as I feel well out of > my depth & comfort zone. > > They're as a result of https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/916121/ which > I've had assigned to me for an equally long time. > > There were concerns about the size increase by support 11r & 11w which > prompted the idea of generating a 'wpad-basic' variant for the tiny > targets with limited flash space and adding a whizbang special effects > to the normal variant. > > I'd like to keep that very nice Mr Woodhouse happy, and was/am going to > discuss this at the conference to get some help/advice etc, but it's > probably best to send this in now so people can formulate a response in > advance. > > Help, guidance appreciated.... shouting less so but if need be :-) > > Kevin
I already though about something similar. But when I look at all the different build variants we have I think this is too much, it confuses me. I think we have 3 classes of devices 4MB flash, 8MB flash and 16MB+ flash. I would use two variants with openssl and wolfssl which supports everything, so the full variant which then also includes MESH and P2P. There we probably only need wpad and not wpa_supplicant and hostapd. Then the bigger question is what do we need on the constrained devices? Hauke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
