[OpenWrt-Devel] [RFC][netifd]: Support for 802154 devices

2017-01-11 Thread Anatoliy Atanasov 
Hey Folks,

I saw that netifd isn't able to fully manage 802154 devices. At the moment
it lacks the understanding of wpan settings and definition. If it would be
in a separate file it would look like:
/etc/config/wpan

config wpan-device radio0
option type 'mac80215'
option channel '11'
option disabled '0' / '1'

config wpan-iface
option device 'radio0'
option pan_id '0xbeef'

I figured two ways to implement this.
The approach #1 is to follow the logic in wireless.h/c which wraps calls to
the kernel driver in mac80211.sh & netifd-wireless.sh.
The approach #2 is to replicate the wpan-tools code which would add a
dependency to libnl.

I'm wondering which approach to follow in doing this task?

Regards, Anatoliy
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Data_Model_Structure_Proposal_for_OpenWRT

2017-01-11 Thread Ladislav Lhotka 

> On 11 Jan 2017, at 14:45, Sukru Senli  wrote:
> 
> Hi Lada,
> 
> Thank you for your feedback.
> 
> The initial goal of this proposal is presenting the idea of adopting a data 
> model structure which addresses the issue 1 given in the proposal and then 
> defining data models based on this structure which addresses issue 2 given in 
> the proposal.
> 
> The JSON example given in the proposal was just to demonstrate an example how 
> configuration properties and methods of an entity could be hosted in a single 
> structure and how that structure could be used to generate UBUS objects.
> 
> If the idea is embraced by the community, the next step would be diving into 
> the technical details such as should an OpenWrt specific data model structure 
> be designed or should it be based on an existing data model language e.g YANG.

Sure, hopefully the existence of standard tools might help in deciding. Lately, 
we've had internal discussions in my company whether to do something along 
these lines for our Turris project.

Thanks, Lada 

> 
> Looking forward to your further feedback as the topic moves forwards.
> 
> Regards,
> Sukru
> 
> 
> From: openwrt-devel [openwrt-devel-boun...@lists.openwrt.org] on behalf of 
> Ladislav Lhotka [lho...@nic.cz]
> Sent: Monday, January 9, 2017 5:14 PM
> To: openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
> Subject: Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Data_Model_Structure_Proposal_for_OpenWRT
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I agree with you analysis and, moreover, I believe that network
> management community has gone a long way to provide tools for both areas
> that you mention:
> 
> * RESTCONF protocol:
>  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-restconf
> * YANG data modelling language:
>  https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950
> 
> RESTCONF (that should become an RFC soon) could be the integrating layer
> for configuration and state data, but also for RPCs and asynchronous
> notifications.
> 
> YANG is not exactly JSON but close, and it is IMO quite a poweful
> language for this domain.
> 
> In the long run, it might also help in implementing standard data models
> in OpenWRT. These models are currently being developed not only in IETF
> but also in IEEE, BroadBand Forum, and elsewhere.
> 
> I will be happy to help with this stuff.
> 
> Cheers, Lada
> 
>  Forwarded Message 
> Subject: [OpenWrt] Data_Model_Structure_Proposal_for_OpenWRT
> Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 11:22:45 +
> From: Sukru Senli 
> To: open...@lists.prplfoundation.org 
> CC: openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org 
> 
> Dear OpenWrt community,
> 
> As we know OpenWrt is gaining popularity among industry players,
> especially in residential gateway world. Being one of these industry
> player who has been developing OpenWrt based software for over five
> years now and being a devoted user of the two core components, UBUS and
> UCI, as Inteno, we see two obstacles in OpenWRT on its’ way to be the
> undisputed choice for the majority of the gateway vendors:
> 
> Configuration of an entity and data collection from the same entity
> cannot be achieved via single object:
> -
> For any on-top applications Inteno or third party developers build
> (WebGUI, remote applications etc.) we have to interact with both UBUS
> and UCI (libuci or uci object on ubus) to be able to control a single
> entity. This makes it more difficult for developers as they have to know
> not only what ubus objects but also what uci files and sections they
> must interact with, and interacting with two components increases the
> number of the code they have to write. It also makes it quite
> complicated in terms of access control towards an entity of the software.
> 
> There are no ubus data models defined for controlling the entities:
> 
> If there were data models defined for how to configure/control the
> different entities of the software (network, wireless. voice etc.), any
> application built on top of this data model would seamlessly work across
> different platforms and OpenWRT based systems as long as the
> applications controlling these entities were following the data model.
> Moreover, a defined data model for ubus based on a data model structure
> which addresses the first problem, UCI would no longer be mandatory
> which makes OpenWRT much easier to adapt to for many vendors out there.
> 
> We believe the solution to these problems would be developing a data
> model structure towards OpenWRT's ubus with features such as:
> - JSON based, well formatted, easy to use/understand
> - supports auto code and document generation
> - contains version, properties (configuration), methods, valid

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Data_Model_Structure_Proposal_for_OpenWRT

2017-01-11 Thread Sukru Senli 
Hi Lada,

Thank you for your feedback.

The initial goal of this proposal is presenting the idea of adopting a data 
model structure which addresses the issue 1 given in the proposal and then 
defining data models based on this structure which addresses issue 2 given in 
the proposal.

The JSON example given in the proposal was just to demonstrate an example how 
configuration properties and methods of an entity could be hosted in a single 
structure and how that structure could be used to generate UBUS objects.

If the idea is embraced by the community, the next step would be diving into 
the technical details such as should an OpenWrt specific data model structure 
be designed or should it be based on an existing data model language e.g YANG.

Looking forward to your further feedback as the topic moves forwards.

Regards,
Sukru


From: openwrt-devel [openwrt-devel-boun...@lists.openwrt.org] on behalf of 
Ladislav Lhotka [lho...@nic.cz]
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2017 5:14 PM
To: openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
Subject: Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Data_Model_Structure_Proposal_for_OpenWRT

Hi,

I agree with you analysis and, moreover, I believe that network
management community has gone a long way to provide tools for both areas
that you mention:

* RESTCONF protocol:
  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-restconf
* YANG data modelling language:
  https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950

RESTCONF (that should become an RFC soon) could be the integrating layer
for configuration and state data, but also for RPCs and asynchronous
notifications.

YANG is not exactly JSON but close, and it is IMO quite a poweful
language for this domain.

In the long run, it might also help in implementing standard data models
in OpenWRT. These models are currently being developed not only in IETF
but also in IEEE, BroadBand Forum, and elsewhere.

I will be happy to help with this stuff.

Cheers, Lada

 Forwarded Message 
Subject: [OpenWrt] Data_Model_Structure_Proposal_for_OpenWRT
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 11:22:45 +
From: Sukru Senli 
To: open...@lists.prplfoundation.org 
CC: openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org 

Dear OpenWrt community,

As we know OpenWrt is gaining popularity among industry players,
especially in residential gateway world. Being one of these industry
player who has been developing OpenWrt based software for over five
years now and being a devoted user of the two core components, UBUS and
UCI, as Inteno, we see two obstacles in OpenWRT on its’ way to be the
undisputed choice for the majority of the gateway vendors:

Configuration of an entity and data collection from the same entity
cannot be achieved via single object:
-
For any on-top applications Inteno or third party developers build
(WebGUI, remote applications etc.) we have to interact with both UBUS
and UCI (libuci or uci object on ubus) to be able to control a single
entity. This makes it more difficult for developers as they have to know
not only what ubus objects but also what uci files and sections they
must interact with, and interacting with two components increases the
number of the code they have to write. It also makes it quite
complicated in terms of access control towards an entity of the software.

There are no ubus data models defined for controlling the entities:

If there were data models defined for how to configure/control the
different entities of the software (network, wireless. voice etc.), any
application built on top of this data model would seamlessly work across
different platforms and OpenWRT based systems as long as the
applications controlling these entities were following the data model.
Moreover, a defined data model for ubus based on a data model structure
which addresses the first problem, UCI would no longer be mandatory
which makes OpenWRT much easier to adapt to for many vendors out there.

We believe the solution to these problems would be developing a data
model structure towards OpenWRT's ubus with features such as:
- JSON based, well formatted, easy to use/understand
- supports auto code and document generation
- contains version, properties (configuration), methods, valid data
types/ranges, error codes per object
- allows configuration, data collection and actions within the same
object as opposed to OpenWRT today where ubus methods + UCI (using ubus
uci object or libuci or /sbin/uci directly) are used.

Supporting such a data model structure, the ultimate goal would be to
create an OpenWrt data model to be standardized (ubus objects for
controlling network, wireless, voice etc.) in order to achieve
compatibility across different OpenWrt based

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [LEDE-DEV] per-cpu IRQ stack on MIPS

2017-01-11 Thread Felix Fietkau 
On 2017-01-11 00:34, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> Hey folks,
> 
> You might considering backporting this patchset to the LEDE/OpenWRT kernel:
> 
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/mips/msg65937.html
> 
> It prevents crashes when lots of different networking drivers are
> stacked on top of eachother, like gre+l2tp+somethingelse.
I've pushed the backport of these changes to my staging tree at
https://git.lede-project.org/?p=lede/nbd/staging.git;a=summary

I've already tested it on a MT7621 board and it works fine, please test
it on more devices.

- Felix
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel