Re: OpenWrt One - celebrating 20 years of OpenWrt

[Kathy Giori]

Or CrowdSupply [1] (founder Joshua Lifton).

Or I could introduce you to BeagleBoard.org [2] -- combo of the
founder and the exec dir is quite an experienced pair, well-aligned
with OpenWrt principles, experienced with getting high-volume hardware
manufactured and sold (manufactured in Asia). If you want to
collaborate/co-brand with them, you'd have solid experience behind the
sales and distribution of the platform to top-tier distributors
(DigiKey, etc.). I already mentioned this project to founder Jason
Kridner and he'd be happy to have a chat.

kathy

[1] https://www.crowdsupply.com/
[2] https://www.beagleboard.org/

p.s. perhaps you could organize a discussion of this platform at FOSDEM?


On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 7:05 AM Dave Taht  wrote:
>
> Can I recommend you do a kickstarter?
>
> ___
> openwrt-devel mailing list
> openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
> https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[Kathy Giori]

On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Hauke Mehrtens  wrote:
> We had multiple meetings to find a solution to solve the problems
> between the OpenWrt and the LEDE project and to discuss a possible
> merge. Everyone with commit access to LEDE and all OpenWrt core
> developers were invited to these meetings. We had productive and
> friendly discussions about the problems and our goals.

Thanks for the update Hauke and those who took notes. A merger would
be a nice Christmas present, or at least something to look forward to
in the New Year! ;)

> It is still not decided that both project will finally merge and we
> haven't decided on the name to use, which parts of the infrastructure
> and many other things. In general we are agreeing on many parts and I am
> looking forward to a good merged ending for all of us.

From a PR perspective, I strongly suggest keeping the term OpenWrt as
part of the branding of the project moving forward. It can just be
cosmetic (web site, etc.) but the name has so much history, and
positive connotation, that you don't want to lose that brand attached
to the development moving forward.

happy holidays all!
kg
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWrt / LEDE

[Kathy Giori]

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 4:43 AM, Jo-Philipp Wich  wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I think the status quo has now been described several times and can be
> summarized as:
>
>  - Launching the new LEDE project/fork/reboot without discussing
>matters in advance with the developers not being involved was
>perceived in a hostile action damaging OpenWrt
>
>  - It has been claimed that any changes implemented by LEDE can be
>likewise implemented in OpenWrt as well, obviously not 100%
>identically without prior discussion but at least in a way keeping
>original intents and spirits
>
>  - Both sides expressed the wish to reunite on several occasions
>
> I very much apologize for the huge surprise the LEDE project has been
> to you and I do regret the fact that we didn't discuss it earlier with
> you guys. Some of us got caught in the belief that building a new,
> shiny sandpit according to our liking would be the better course of
> action compared to drastically changing OpenWrt for something not
> guaranteed to work in the long run.
>
> That being said I still think that LEDE already is a success, at least
> in my personal perception. When I mention "we" here I mean all the
> people having participated in LEDE, regardless of affiliation or agenda.
>
> Notable points are:
>
>  - We managed to figure out workflows supporting both mailing-list /
>patchwork-driven development and a more contributor oriented pull
>request model
>
>  - We figured out how to have a linear history without resorting to
>limiting ourselves to svn now (which was the sole argument for
>keeping it btw.)
>
>  - We reworked the buildbots to be more efficient
>
>  - We managed to quickly acquire donations, specifically regarding
>mirror space and build bot capacity
>
>  - We based the web page on a Git repo and mirrored that to Github
>in order to let people contribute
>
>  - We attempted to do everything publically [since the LEDE announcemnt]
>and retroactively published communication regarding the project
>implementation
>
>  - We have between three to four people per server having root access,
>with at least one person not being affiliated with "the cabal"
>
> On the other hand we didn't yet manage to:
>
>  - Clearly communicate our past and future intents upfront and after
>the fact
>
>  - Start a proper discussion with OpenWrt regarding the future direction
>of both projects
>
>  - Untangle the infrastructure (wiki.openwrt.org, dev.openwrt.org,
>git.openwrt.org)
>
>
> The weak effort on both sides in talking about both projects future
> direction paralyzed progress for all of us and in the associated
> communities so I'd very much like to reach at least some agreement or
> definitive decision soon.
>
> In order to underline my honest intention I'd like to give up
> maintenance of the OpenWrt wiki and hand the data / SSH access over to
> you guys so that you can migrate / maintain / rework it as you deem
> fitting.
>
> We're also still in possession of the secret build key for the CC
> release used to sign the package repositories. I'd be glad to throw it
> over the fence and assist you with using my package rebuild scripts to
> push security updates.
>
> Please tell me a contact and I'll provide the person with suitable
> access.
>
> I also still have root access to dev.openwrt.org hosting the Trac,
> though you could reach out to Mirko as well to get access to the system.
>
> Luka mentioned that OpenWrt plans to move to Github, we'd be very happy
> if we could spare you the conversion work - we have a cleanly converted
> repository available at https://git.lede-project.org/openwrt/source.git
> which you could use as starting point for future developments - that
> repository maps the historic SVN and CVS branch/tag structure as good
> as possible to proper Git branches and tags. I also took some care in
> converting svn committer nicknames to proper authors.
>
> We did equivalent conversions for the old packages and old feeds svn
> repositories in https://git.lede-project.org/openwrt/packages.git and
> https://git.lede-project.org/openwrt/feeds.git .
>
> Finally I'd like to hand over my non-root access to the OpenWrt
> buildmaster which I'd hand over to interested OpenWrt people. I took
> over maintenance for some time because Travis has been rather busy with
> real life these days.
>
> If there is truly some interest among the remaining OpenWrt folks to
> reunite while adopting the visions and working modes of LEDE then
> please speak up and tell us about your demands.
>
>
> Best wishes,
> Jo

Jo,

I appreciate your well-written summary and the notable improvements.
Moving to git and keeping history, improving the web site and
documentation to enable more collaboration, making workflows more
efficient and open, etc. had been discussed during face-to-face
gatherings of OpenWrt core + industry, at ELCE events over the past
couple years. I got involved as a liaison from 

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Kathy Giori]

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Fernando Frediani  wrote:
> Thanks Daniel. That explains a lot.
> I imagine if some digging is done it would be possible to find the holders
> of the critical resources and then re-organize it from scratch within the
> OpenWrt Project.
> But as the fork has already happened there is no much point in doing that.

If it is too late to stop the "project" teams from having their
independence from each other, can there at least be a common core for
both projects, where all the kernel and board support stuff lives for
example? And whatever else makes sense not to be duplicated? Let the
differences exist at a higher layer, ideally more cosmetic. Share as
much as possible. Communicate ideas for the common core openly.
Leverage each others skills for a greater overall benefit.

Would this idea work? I recommend that both groups propose whatever
solutions they can think of to reduce duplication of effort and to
avoid further community confusion and frustration.

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Kathy Giori]

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Daniel Dickinson
<open...@daniel.thecshore.com> wrote:
> On 16-05-04 12:25 PM, Kathy Giori wrote:
>> Also wearing my hat within the prpl Foundation, which is funded by
>> industry sponsorships that in turn provides financial support for
>> OpenWrt, no one I have spoken to in prpl understands the reason for
>> this spin-off either. It'll cause more confusion and inefficiency in
>> industry. prpl will stick with OpenWrt, and I expect most companies
>> who follow and/or contribute to OpenWrt will stick with it too.
>
> Silly question, but can you outline some specific examples of
> contributions that an outsider like me has somehow missed as being as
> concrete examples of companies contributing back to openwrt, rather than
> just benefiting from it?
>

Daniel I fully concur that industry "give back" is severely lacking.
It seems to me that the bigger the company, the less likely they are
to give back. One of the goals of the prpl Foundation was to help big
industry members to better "see" that problem, and to use prpl to help
them do something about it.

I see two main reasons for the lack of contributions problem (not
developer fault).
1. short-term focus. Industry rushes to meet product release schedules
and managers are too often not aware of the downstream maintenance
burdens they will face later, by not integrating their changes
properly into the Linux kernel (and OpenWrt).
2. legal. I could blab about this problem for days, but mainly there
is a fear of open source licensing when compared to the value of
giving back. This type of FUD problem is perhaps one that prpl could
help address too, through educational efforts.

As an example of a contribution, prpl is promoting the OpenWrt "board
farm" project, intended to support automated testing (of trunk) on
various platforms on a daily basis. The test framework was in fact
contributed by industry.

Now imagine the new problem that industry faces if they want to give
back. Do they have to push changes back into two different/similar
project branches? Do they need to setup two board farms or double the
test time? Will some companies choose to push to OpenWrt and others to
LEDE, leaving the end-user to figure out which project's software will
run on their board?

In my opinion, the OpenWrt core team members need to setup some
policies and procedures (e.g., take ideas from the LEDE objectives)
that allow the fairness and flexibility that is desired, so that only
one OpenWrt development branch continues to be developed. Reducing the
core team to the LEDE subgroup will take away from the diversity of
the project at the core, and I don't see that as a good thing. Yes,
collaboration in a diverse environment is harder, but research has
shown repeatedly that companies with staff diversity perform better.

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Kathy Giori]

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Jo-Philipp Wich  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we'd like to introduce LEDE, a reboot of the OpenWrt community
> .
>
> The project is founded as a spin-off of the OpenWrt project and shares
> many of the same goals.

While I appreciate the enthusiasm, I do not see why you cannot apply
these same "principles" of openness and transparency to the OpenWrt
project. Makes no sense to me to branch the project. That simply
divides the resources in the community into fewer numbers working on
each fork.

Also wearing my hat within the prpl Foundation, which is funded by
industry sponsorships that in turn provides financial support for
OpenWrt, no one I have spoken to in prpl understands the reason for
this spin-off either. It'll cause more confusion and inefficiency in
industry. prpl will stick with OpenWrt, and I expect most companies
who follow and/or contribute to OpenWrt will stick with it too.

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

[OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWrt enhancement ideas -- opportunity for prpl funding -- deadline May 18

[Kathy Giori]

To the community of OpenWrt developers:

The deadline for submitting an idea to enhance OpenWrt, and to receive
funding assistance to do the work, is a short two weeks away. Since we
have been discussing the idea of such a program for several weeks, we
hope you have been thinking about a good idea you'd like to propose.
Now is your chance. :)

If interested, follow this link for submission details.
http://wiki.prplfoundation.org/wiki/OpenWrt_Funding

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact me
directly by replying to this e-mail.
kathy
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

[OpenWrt-Devel] prpl sync 3/31/16

[Kathy Giori]

Attendees:
Eric, Art, Hauke, Thomas, Kathy, Michal, and some others..

prpl board farm

* up and running, contact Eric if you want to get a board into the farm
* next phase to optimize cost and expand capacity so that others can
replicate the farm

PSSP

* fund projects of interest to the community
* fund projects of interest to downstream companies who build upon OpenWrt
* Art and Hauke had a discussion; how to create win-win program for
community and companies (since Hauke has one foot in each)
* Art to follow-up with other core team members in the next week,
converge on goals, strategy

Regulatory update

* is FCC rejecting cert based on poor general security? TP-Link
blocked open source updates (March 12) — argument was that lock-down
was required to pass the FCC radio restrictions
* Eric presented at Libre Planet, spoke on FCC issues — good response
from that community and more discussion ensued on ways to handle it
* FTC getting into the loop on rating security? Hauke posted a link
(sorry I didn’t copy it into these notes, but you can contact him if
you’re interested)

OpenWrt Summit 2016

* Need volunteers for the planning committee!
* Eric will send out an e-mail asking for interested members to join
the planning committee
* prpl will handle the heavy lifting logistics and funding to
hopefully keep it free to attend
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Request for Feedback - prplwrt Software Support Program - initial draft

[Kathy Giori]

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:23 AM, xxiao8 <xxi...@fosiao.com> wrote:
> I would expect prpl had lots of discussion with Openwrt core developers
> already before this. It appears that did not happen.

At the OpenWrt Summit held in conjunction with ELCE last October, the
concept of prpl helping fund some development, documentation, and
other tasks deemed useful to the community was discussed. In the past
couple days, Art Swift (prpl Pres) had the opportunity to obtain
high-level feedback from a few carriers and operators who have been
participating in the Home Gateway Initiative (HGI). Some use OpenWrt
and want to see it enhanced, others have never used it and seem wary.

> Intel funded the core developers for Yocto(x86), Linaro gets money from
> ARM(arm), now it seems prpl is trying to better some ecosystem for mips via
> Openwrt.

prpl isn't just MIPS focused, even though Imagination initiated the
foundation. The activity around OpenWrt has been architecture
agnostic.

>
> IMHO, prpl either does something major(full and open community involvement,
> much more financial sponsorship,etc), or sponsor a few sub-projects
> initially to earn a name for itself before anything major.

prpl doesn't have deep pockets. But beginning to fund some of the
"carrier grade features" described in my previous e-mail may attract
more members from HGI (which is closing), which would help add to the
funding budget available. As we begin this process, it will be
interesting to see what sorts of projects are proposed by or become
the favorites among the community. Good ideas can come from anyone.

A side benefit of attracting product vendors and service providers to
deploy and manage hardware running OpenWrt, is that it may also cause
them to request that silicon vendors do better at kernel upstreaming
and OpenWrt contributions. One can hope. ;)

>
> Openwrt in the IoT days in my opinion should be put under Linux Foundation.

I like the idea of an OpenWrt Foundation under the Linux Foundation
too. prpl Foundation != OpenWrt Foundation. We simply initiated a PEG
inside prpl to facilitate better communication and collaboration
between industry and community. (Since an OpenWrt Foundation did not
exist.)

Tactically, we want feedback on the funding idea. If there is a
resounding thumbs down, no worries, it won't happen. But if some of
you like the idea, then we need two things:
* feedback on the proposal process
* a few volunteers to join the evaluation committee

You are all welcome to provide feedback publicly or privately, or join
a discussion call (see below).

> On 03/09/2016 03:11 PM, openwrt-devel-requ...@lists.openwrt.org wrote:
>> On 2016-03-09 17:46, Kathy Giori wrote:
>>>
[..]
>> I do agree that keeping things neutral and not skewing a project towards
>> one particular vendor is important. However, there's one critical aspect
>> that in my opinion is still very dysfunctional with prpl trying to act
>> as a middle man here: communication.

Agree, communication is critical. Ideas for improvement most welcome.
Maybe need more opportunities for face-to-face discussions. But key
folks for those discussions are developers from industry, and they are
spread out all over the place and may not have an easy time being
approved for travel. Maybe we can go back to doing some video (google
hangout) calls, each with a specific topic to be discussed. This
funding idea can be topic #1.

>>
>> Some of us (especially John) have repeatedly attempted to get some
>> information on what the bigger OpenWrt users among the corporate prpl
>> members actually need. What are their issues with OpenWrt, what are
>> their requirements for useful features, etc. Maybe some information on
>> how they're actually using OpenWrt. In some ways that can be even more
>> important than having a neutral channel for funding.

Good point. Need the developers from industry to be engaged. They may
want to be, but may not have the opportunity or can't justify it
because prpl is still too much of an unknown brand. Perhaps having an
"OpenWrt Foundation" would help justify more engagement, akin to how
industry developers are able to participate in Linux Foundation
events. Then prpl can have a layer on top of that to help bridge
industry to community a bit more from the business requirements side.

>>
>> To this day I don't know if there is some strategic communication going
>> on about this inside prpl that is just not communicated to us, or if the
>> prpl members simply don't bother to talk about this stuff and only drop
>> off some buzzword lists of high level things they wish for, without
>> actually bothering to go into specific details.
>> I've heard rumors leaning towards one or the other side, but I don't
>> know much about what's actually going on behind the scenes.

Not 

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Request for Feedback - prplwrt Software Support Program - initial draft

[Kathy Giori]

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Saverio Proto  wrote:
>> I don't have a number off hand, that's still being decided. My feeling has
>> been that's it'd be in the tens of thousands USD total. I'll try to get more
>> of finalized amount as soon as possible.
>
> Hello Eric,
>
> considering that a Senior Engineer in the SF Bay Area has an average
> income of 120.000 USD per year... a contribution on terms of tens of
> thousands dollars does not cover even the work of one person for one
> year. Should we for this little money involve an american foundation
> in the decisional processes ?
>
> My feeling is that prpl is an American foundation that is throwing
> penauts to a successfull open source project to have development at
> low cost.
> A company that hires a team of developer for a Carrier Grade OpenWrt
> spends more than 100.000 USD per year in development cost.
>
> You are right, there is a conflict between the community and prpl, so
> you have to convince us better :)
>
> Best regards
>
> Saverio

Saverio and all,

Let me offer a few thoughts, since I've been involved in prpl since
the beginning, and you can either praise (preferred) or blame me for
initiating the prplwrt PEG. :)

My initial goal was simple -- improved industry-community
collaboration. But my secondary goal, assuming trust relationships
would be established, had also been the idea of funding OpenWrt
developers via prpl. Why not industry direct? Partly not to skew the
project toward one specific vendor, but also because industry-direct
funding to individual developers, or even professional services
companies out of country of the funder, can be problematic
(logistically/legally). I lived through some painful attempts.

It is wasteful to see industry re-invent the wheel in
custom/proprietary or even open source ways, when there are FOSS
solutions to a problem. Sometimes industry isn't aware (shame for not
looking harder), but often they worry about lack of "control". If prpl
could establish the means to collaborate effectively, then we can
discourage industry from either being completely redundant, or from
forking FOSS projects such as OpenWrt (and direct kernel hacks) into
hard-to-maintain dead ends.

Regarding PSSP:

1. Frequency. The PSSP funding cycle as proposed is twice per year,
and that timeline includes the process of bringing forward ideas,
prioritizing them, and then selecting as many implementers as the
cycle of that budget allows. "Big" ideas therefore will need to be
broken down into pieces. For example, with a goal of auto-update, it
may start with a proposed framework or pre-requisite security feature.
An idea for cycle 1 could even be a "study" of various autoupdate
frameworks and options -- a thorough due diligence analysis, having a
reviewed document as the deliverable.

2. Non-exclusivity. There is nothing stopping a prpl member or
non-member business from funding any of the proposed project ideas
outside of prpl. Going back to the "relationship" and collaboration
goal, prpl organizes weekly calls, participates in related industry
meetings, and sponsors face-to-face (plus streamed) OpenWrt Summits.
These are useful to expose industry and community developers to each
other so that they can better collaborate, openly and/or under
contract.

3. Positive feedback. If early funding cycle projects are a big
success, highly valued by prpl members (and the community), then I
would expect that subsequent funding rounds may increase in scope and
budget.

4. Themes. Eric mentioned "carrier grade" features. For example
(courtesy of an HGI member):
a. Network interface diffs between carrier gateways and retail
routers. Multiple WAN, VLANS, hybrid streams, ...
b. End-to-end QoS/QoE. IPTV reliability, network discovery, spectrum
management for LAN/WLAN optimization, inter AP comms, ...
c. Telephony support. VoIP, DECT/Cat-iq, FXS/FXO, ...
d. Network acceleration offload. Common framework for hw and/or sw
based packet processing and acceleration in order to achieve line rate
throughout.
e. Remote mgmt and firmware or software upgrades. Securely. Include
framework for smart gateway -- downloading 3rd party apps.
f. Secure firmware. (Need key management analysis - who holds what
keys?) Carriers want to protect certain resources such as networking
and root gateway management while allowing openness to 3rd party
software and services. Want to convince vendors to enable flexibility
for technologists, tinkerers, and innovators to unlock hardware for
innovation and research, to include full networking stack.
g. Power saving. Newer SoCs have more power control knobs -- invoke a
framework to take advantage of reduced power modes.
h. Automated testing. Already have a start at github.com/qca/boardfarm.
i. Deployment support. Dependency on remote management, but to include
confidence that major kernel upgrades can occur over time, for
increased performance and decreased security risks.
j. App environment. For installing 3rd 

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] update config.guess & config.sub

[Kathy Giori]

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Alexey Brodkin
 wrote:
> Hi Felix,
>
> On Thu, 2015-07-30 at 11:43 +0300, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
>> These are from today's master branch of:
>> http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=config.git;a=tree
>>
>> In particular it adds support for ARC architecture plus some more
>> improvements and fixes.
>>
>> This patch is built-tested against NetGear WNDR3800.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alexey Brodkin 
>> Cc: Florian Fainelli 
>> Cc: Imre Kaloz 
>> ---
>>  scripts/config.guess | 378 
>> +++
>>  scripts/config.sub   | 150 
>>  2 files changed, 238 insertions(+), 290 deletions(-)
>
> I'm wondering if there're any comments on this one.
> Otherwise please consider applying.
>
> This patch is a prerequisite for ARC port submission I'm going to send out
> shortly.

Alexey,

Is there a particular reason that this architecture must be submitted
to OpenWrt under the terms GPL v3+? I would prefer that OpenWrt stick
to GPL v2 in order to maintain better compatibility with the Linux
kernel (kernel.org). The kernel is primarily GPL v2 licensed (or
something FreeBSD-like which is more, not less, permissive). The
OpenWrt distro has only a few GPL v3 package exceptions, such as
samba.

The OpenWrt core team are doing a good job building a better
industry-community relationship for OpenWrt, which I think can be a
win-win for overall project improvement (brings in more developer
resources, much like kernel development depends on industry
developers). Introducing more GPL v3 packages makes it problematic for
certain industry partners to be able to fully collaborate.

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] AR8334 switch support

[Kathy Giori]

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 5:15 AM, Christian Mehlis christ...@m3hlis.de wrote:
 Am 27.04.2015 um 20:56 schrieb Heiner Kallweit:

 The only other difference I found is the initial setting of LED_CTRL3
 register.
 Could you please test the following patch (first remove the initial patch
 attempt)?


 [0.85] switch0: Atheros AR833X rev. 2 switch registered on
 ag71xx-mdio.0
 [0.86] Atheros AR8216/AR8236/AR8316 ag71xx-mdio.0:00: led_val = 3f
 [0.86] Atheros AR8216/AR8236/AR8316 ag71xx-mdio.0:00: Detected
 AR8337

 It seems that we have no luck here...
 In case you have any new idea I'll test the patch.

Here's some general info about the QCA8334 chip that might help. If
you have specific questions let me know and I will try to find
answers.

The four ports of the Gigabit switch engine are:
Port 0 GMAC: RGMII/MII/RMII
Port 2 and 3 GMAC: 2 *10/100/1000BASE-T
Port 6 GMAC: SerDes/SGMII

It can be configured using serial EEPROM and/or the MDC/MDIO interface.

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Why OpenWrt sucks?

[Kathy Giori]

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Charlie Smurthwaite
char...@atechmedia.com wrote:
 On 09/03/15 20:02, valent.turko...@gmail.com wrote:

 Main issue is that wifi chip manufacturers don't offer open source
 wifi drivers. If Atheros and Broadcom understood Open source as Intel
 does then you would get absolutely top speed and reliability from
 OpenWrt wifi drivers. You don't get top notch performance with OpenWrt
 because Atheros and Broadcom are choosing not release quality open
 source drivers.

 I think you'll get a lot of opposition to the concept that Atheros don't
 contribute and support this project and Linux in general.

I would agree. Have you all noticed that Kalle Valo (Qualcomm Atheros)
took over for John Linville as upstream Linux wireless drivers
maintainer? That is a big job, which is on top of the ath10k upstream
11ac Wi-Fi driver he maintains. And technical challenges are not the
only hurdles. If you peer inside a large company you'd see how tough
it is to promote open source development in general, due mostly to PHB
FUD.

Despite such roadblocks, there are developers who care deeply about
proper upstream and open source development. And although certainly in
the minority at large companies, their talent is usually exceptional.
Arend Van Spriel is an example of dedication to the community despite
the lack of broader open source support from his company. He's a guy
we should cheer, not blame. It can be quite painful for upstream
developers to deal with engineering managers who don't get what they
do or why it is so important. I applaud the developers who have the
courage to stick with it. Trying to do upstreaming from outside of a
semiconductor company (without access to the inside scoop) is really
hard, which is why it is important to hang in there.

I also don't think poor performance can be tied only to Wi-Fi. System
performance tuning done to the core Linux networking stack,
including bridging and routing functions, can also make a big
difference. If only the tweaks used to tune commercial products were
applied upstream. :(

And finally, I have met several core OpenWrt developers and they rock.
Without much in terms of financial resources and even with a small
group, their sheer talent and enthusiasm has created an incredibly
successful embedded Linux distribution. It is the go to distro that
enables developers with the source code they need to develop further
innovation.
kg
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel