Piotr Dymacz 于2018年12月6日周四 上午3:54写道：
>
> Hi Mathias,
>
> On 05.12.2018 09:56, Mathias Kresin wrote:
> > Hey all,
> >
> > I would like to start to reject patches for adding boards with only 32
> > MByte of RAM and 4 MByte of flash [0]. These boards barely work with
> > todays OpenWrt default
On 05/12/2018 13:39, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
On 2018-12-05 13:31, Paul Oranje wrote:
Op 4 dec. 2018, om 12:32 heeft Rafał Miłecki het
volgende geschreven:
From: Rafał Miłecki
Device gets removed from the list (vlist_delete()) when block calls
"hotplug" method of blockd using ubus. Right
Hi,
> This is a trial to make it more obvious what the historically
> grown code is actually doing.
when we already refactor the code...
> Signed-off-by: Michael Heimpold
> ---
> inittab.c | 9 -
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/inittab.c b/inittab.c
On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 23:30, Alberto Bursi wrote:
> On 05/12/18 22:35, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> > From: Rafał Miłecki
> >
> > This is what was implemented in mountd and what some scripts used to
> > use. It's a pretty generic solution for managing software that may use
> > e.g. USB storage.
>
>
>
3g.sh needs to be executable. 600 is not correct for that.
Signed-off-by: Rosen Penev
---
package/network/utils/comgt/Makefile | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/package/network/utils/comgt/Makefile
b/package/network/utils/comgt/Makefile
index
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: openwrt-devel [mailto:openwrt-devel-boun...@lists.openwrt.org] Im
> Auftrag von Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 5. Dezember 2018 11:03
[...]
> Do we have a wiki table somewhere that has the device name, ar71xx info
> and ath79 info,
This is a trial to make it more obvious what the historically
grown code is actually doing.
Signed-off-by: Michael Heimpold
---
inittab.c | 9 -
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/inittab.c b/inittab.c
index 4b9..41816b7 100644
--- a/inittab.c
+++
On 05/12/18 22:35, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
From: Rafał Miłecki
This is what was implemented in mountd and what some scripts used to
use. It's a pretty generic solution for managing software that may use
e.g. USB storage.
Could you explain a bit more about what is this doing instead of just
On 2018-12-05 22:35, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
From: Rafał Miłecki
This is what was implemented in mountd and what some scripts used to
use. It's a pretty generic solution for managing software that may use
e.g. USB storage.
Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki
Forgot to say, it requires
[PATCH
From: Rafał Miłecki
This is what was implemented in mountd and what some scripts used to
use. It's a pretty generic solution for managing software that may use
e.g. USB storage.
Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki
---
block.c | 29 +
1 file changed, 29 insertions(+)
diff
Mathias Kresin wrote:
> I would like to start to reject patches for adding boards with only 32
MByte
> of RAM and 4 MByte of flash [0]. These boards barely work with todays
OpenWrt
> default builds and require quite some modifications to be useful at all
> [1].
So, no new
Hi Mathias,
On 05.12.2018 09:56, Mathias Kresin wrote:
Hey all,
I would like to start to reject patches for adding boards with only 32
MByte of RAM and 4 MByte of flash [0]. These boards barely work with
todays OpenWrt default builds and require quite some modifications to be
useful at all
@Alex Maclean and @Alberto Bursi
Thank you for the recomendations!
On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 14:39, Alberto Bursi wrote:
>
>
> On 05/12/2018 15:08, Carlos Ferreira wrote:
> > I still have a bunch of Old Foneras and some TP-Link 703N and TL-MR11U
> > battery powered micro-routers.
> > The foneras
On 05/12/2018 15:08, Carlos Ferreira wrote:
I still have a bunch of Old Foneras and some TP-Link 703N and TL-MR11U
battery powered micro-routers.
The foneras are kinda useless, but the TP-Links are somewhat usefull
and I still use them with OpenWRT.
What other inexpensive routers would you
On 05/12/2018 14:08, Carlos Ferreira wrote:
> I still have a bunch of Old Foneras and some TP-Link 703N and TL-MR11U
> battery powered micro-routers.
> The foneras are kinda useless, but the TP-Links are somewhat usefull
> and I still use them with OpenWRT.
>
> What other inexpensive routers
This change enables support to select phy4 in RGMII mode and
enables RGMII TX/RX clock internal delays.
Signed-off-by: Ram Chandra Jangir
---
.../linux/ipq806x/files-4.14/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-ipq8064-ap161.dts | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git
We have IPQ8064 AP161 board which has three GMAC's
* RGMII x2
* SGMII x1.
The existing ar8327 driver does not have support for
three GMAC's connection, hence this change adds support
for the same. This has been verified on AP148 and AP161
board.
Signed-off-by: xiaofeis
Signed-off-by: Ram
Sorry about that. I had clicked into Reply to List and for some reason
it included only one of them.
Then the question may be simpler only about 32MB of RAM if it's the case
for newer devices or not.
Let's see others opinions. I am not entirely convinced but I see your point.
Fernando
On
Please don't top post and keep all lists as recipients. I added
openwrt-devel back to the list of recipients.
05/12/2018 14:57, Fernando Frediani:
Hi
Just to make it clear you mean that for the master right ? Not for 18.06
(when it becomes 19.0x) and LEDE 17.01 (while it's still alive) ?
If
I still have a bunch of Old Foneras and some TP-Link 703N and TL-MR11U
battery powered micro-routers.
The foneras are kinda useless, but the TP-Links are somewhat usefull
and I still use them with OpenWRT.
What other inexpensive routers would you sugest to substitute the ones
from TP-Link I just
I was about to recommend the Download Stats page at
https://downloads.openwrt.org/stats/ as a first cut...
> Would it be possible to get some download stats for release/snapshot images,
> so we can get some rough numbers about popularity of devices in the wild?
BUT... that page doesn't seem to
Mathias Kresin [2018-12-05 10:07:52]:
Hi,
> > IMHO it doesn't make much sense to waste resources (reviewer time, build
> > resources) for boards which will most likely never see an official build
> > and/or are more or less unusable with the official build.
I fully agree on dropping support
On 2018-12-05 13:31, Paul Oranje wrote:
Op 4 dec. 2018, om 12:32 heeft Rafał Miłecki het
volgende geschreven:
From: Rafał Miłecki
Device gets removed from the list (vlist_delete()) when block calls
"hotplug" method of blockd using ubus. Right after that block unmounts
that device on its
> Op 4 dec. 2018, om 12:32 heeft Rafał Miłecki het volgende
> geschreven:
>
> From: Rafał Miłecki
>
> Device gets removed from the list (vlist_delete()) when block calls
> "hotplug" method of blockd using ubus. Right after that block unmounts
> that device on its own.
>
> blockd shouldn't
Em 04/12/2018 19:57, Piotr Dymacz escreveu:
On 04.12.2018 17:08, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
Another aspect was the LED configuration, as LED naming is very
inconsistent and often differs from ar71xx. Some LEDs are now not
included in UCI configuration. >
So you either need to delete
As a frequent user of openwrt, and app developer for openwrt,
I definitely agree to stop patches for these devices with very low resources.
Better to invest available development efforts on reasonable devices, having
64MB RAM, 8MB flash, minimum.
Cheers,
Reiner
Am 05.12.2018 um 11:07 schrieb
05/12/2018 09:56, Mathias Kresin:
Hey all,
I would like to start to reject patches for adding boards with only 32
MByte of RAM and 4 MByte of flash [0]. These boards barely work with
todays OpenWrt default builds and require quite some modifications to be
useful at all [1].
IMHO it doesn't
Hey all,
I would like to start to reject patches for adding boards with only 32
MByte of RAM and 4 MByte of flash [0]. These boards barely work with
todays OpenWrt default builds and require quite some modifications to be
useful at all [1].
IMHO it doesn't make much sense to waste resources
28 matches
Mail list logo
