Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Inquery

Rosen Penev schreef op 11 december 2019 22:17:34 CET: >On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 11:32 AM Alberto Bursi > wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/12/19 18:54, Daniel Golle wrote: >> > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 05:37:26PM +0100, WRT Burner wrote: >> >> On 11/12/2019 15:22, Daniel Golle wrote: >> >>> And it's even

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Inquery

On Wednesday, 11 December 2019 15:22:09 CET Daniel Golle wrote: > Hi Tomislav, > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 11:24:21AM +0100, Tom Psyborg wrote: > > suck it > > As a community, we decided to give our self a set of minimal rules[1]. > And even though it is in the last position, rule #12 "Be nice

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Inquery

> -Original Message- > From: openwrt-devel [mailto:openwrt-devel-boun...@lists.openwrt.org] > On Behalf Of Daniel Golle > Sent: Mittwoch, 11. Dezember 2019 15:22 > To: Tom Psyborg > Cc: openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org > Subject: Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Inquery > > Hi Tomislav, > > On Wed,

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Inquery

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 11:32 AM Alberto Bursi wrote: > > > > On 11/12/19 18:54, Daniel Golle wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 05:37:26PM +0100, WRT Burner wrote: > >> On 11/12/2019 15:22, Daniel Golle wrote: > >>> And it's even needless to say that > >>> replying to a spam email in which ever

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Inquery

On 11/12/2019, Daniel Golle wrote: > Hi Tomislav, > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 11:24:21AM +0100, Tom Psyborg wrote: >> suck it > > As a community, we decided to give our self a set of minimal rules[1]. > And even though it is in the last position, rule #12 "Be nice to each > other." is meant just

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] (no subject)

Hi, Have you checked https://openwrt.org/trademark ? Cheers! El 11/12/19 a les 20:43, sagar jain ha escrit: > > Can i sell OpenWRT based router ? > >   > > Sent from Mail for > Windows 10 > >   > > >

[OpenWrt-Devel] (no subject)

Can i sell OpenWRT based router ? Sent from Mail for Windows 10 ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Inquery

On 11/12/19 18:54, Daniel Golle wrote: On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 05:37:26PM +0100, WRT Burner wrote: On 11/12/2019 15:22, Daniel Golle wrote: And it's even needless to say that replying to a spam email in which ever way will always make it worse. +1. There is no constructive value in

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] kernel: ath10k-ct: provide a build variant for small RAM devices

On 12/11/19 11:16 AM, Paul Fertser wrote: Hey Ben, On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 10:06:26AM -0800, Ben Greear wrote: On 12/11/19 6:44 AM, Paul Fertser wrote: According to many bugreports [0][1][2] the default ath10k-ct kernel ... And also if you want to just have the makefile pass a

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] kernel: ath10k-ct: provide a build variant for small RAM devices

Hey Ben, On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 10:06:26AM -0800, Ben Greear wrote: > On 12/11/19 6:44 AM, Paul Fertser wrote: > > According to many bugreports [0][1][2] the default ath10k-ct kernel ... > And also if you want to just have the makefile pass a -DBUILD_ATH10K_SMALL or > something > like that and

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] kernel: ath10k-ct: provide a build variant for small RAM devices

On 12/11/19 6:44 AM, Paul Fertser wrote: According to many bugreports [0][1][2] the default ath10k-ct kernel module is unusable on devices with just 64 MiB RAM or with 128 MiB and dual ath10k cards. The target boards boot but eventually oom-killer starts to interfere with normal operation, so

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Inquery

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 05:37:26PM +0100, WRT Burner wrote: > On 11/12/2019 15:22, Daniel Golle wrote: > > And it's even needless to say that > > replying to a spam email in which ever way will always make it worse. > > +1. There is no constructive value in replying to spam. Let's keep >

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Inquery

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 3:22 PM Daniel Golle wrote: > > Hi Tomislav, > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 11:24:21AM +0100, Tom Psyborg wrote: > > suck it > > As a community, we decided to give our self a set of minimal rules[1]. > And even though it is in the last position, rule #12 "Be nice to each >

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Inquery

On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 at 15:22, Daniel Golle wrote: > As a community, we decided to give our self a set of minimal rules[1]. > And even though it is in the last position, rule #12 "Be nice to each > other." is meant just as serious as all the other rules. > > So here, not for the first time, you

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Inquery

On 11/12/2019 15:22, Daniel Golle wrote: > And it's even needless to say that > replying to a spam email in which ever way will always make it worse. +1. There is no constructive value in replying to spam. Let's keep openwrt-devel nice and clean. On 11/12/2019 15:22, Daniel Golle wrote: > You

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Inquery

> Please learn to behave or leave us alone. +2 -- ynezz ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Inquery

On 11.12.2019 15:22, Daniel Golle wrote: As a community, we decided to give our self a set of minimal rules[1]. And even though it is in the last position, rule #12 "Be nice to each other." is meant just as serious as all the other rules. So here, not for the first time, you are using language

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] kernel: ath10k-ct: provide a build variant for small RAM devices

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 05:44:59PM +0300, Paul Fertser wrote: > +define Build/Patch > + $(if $(QUILT),rm -rf $(PKG_BUILD_DIR)/patches; mkdir -p > $(PKG_BUILD_DIR)/patches) > + $(call PatchDir,$(PKG_BUILD_DIR),$(PATCH_DIR),) > +ifeq ($(BUILD_VARIANT),smallbuffers) > + $(call >

[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] kernel: ath10k-ct: provide a build variant for small RAM devices

According to many bugreports [0][1][2] the default ath10k-ct kernel module is unusable on devices with just 64 MiB RAM or with 128 MiB and dual ath10k cards. The target boards boot but eventually oom-killer starts to interfere with normal operation, so the current state is effectively broken.

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Inquery

On 11/12/2019 15:22, Daniel Golle wrote: As a community, we decided to give our self a set of minimal rules[1]. And even though it is in the last position, rule #12 "Be nice to each other." is meant just as serious as all the other rules. So here, not for the first time, you are using language

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Inquery

Hi Tomislav, On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 11:24:21AM +0100, Tom Psyborg wrote: > suck it As a community, we decided to give our self a set of minimal rules[1]. And even though it is in the last position, rule #12 "Be nice to each other." is meant just as serious as all the other rules. So here, not

[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH v4] This separates the options for signature creation and verification

* SIGNED_PACKAGES create Packages.sig * SIGNED_IMAGES add ucert signature to created images * CHECK_SIGNATURE add verification capabilities to images * INSTALL_LOCAL_KEY add local key-build to /etc/opkg/keys Right now the buildbot.git contains some hacks to create images that have signature

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [RFC][PATCH] base-files: send informational UDP message each second waiting

Hi, > Question is, if it's worth the hassle for a feature which is targeted more > towards the expert users. from my pov - it is not worth overengineering this feature. The proposed patch is more than adequate. It increases the probability of the message getting delivered without additional code

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [RFC][PATCH] base-files: send informational UDP message each second waiting

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 12:47:22PM +0100, Petr Štetiar wrote: > Paul Fertser [2019-12-11 14:03:53]: > > Waiting with a timeout poses a question of what that timeout should be set > > to; and if that's reasonable to extend current 2 seconds with any > > significant amount. > > As you've witnessed

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [RFC][PATCH] base-files: send informational UDP message each second waiting

Paul Fertser [2019-12-11 14:03:53]: > Waiting with a timeout poses a question of what that timeout should be set > to; and if that's reasonable to extend current 2 seconds with any > significant amount. As you've witnessed this default value doesn't work well in some cases. > Current

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] ath79: add D-Link DIR-615 rev. E4

Hello Lars, On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 03:12:02PM +0700, Lars Melin wrote: > On 11/8/2019 14:50, Paul Fertser wrote: > > From working with uIP before on an embedded target I know that it > > doesn't support delayed ACKs in any form, for any packet it sends it > > waits for an ACK before sending the

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [RFC][PATCH] base-files: send informational UDP message each second waiting

Hi, On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 03:42:13PM +0100, Petr Štetiar wrote: > Paul Fertser [2019-12-10 17:24:20]: > > in cases when the interface is brought up faster it leads to two messages > > in cases when the interface is brought up slower it leads to no message. > > To me it just seems like a

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH 2/2] sunxi: construct DTS name from device node name and SOC

Hi, > -Original Message- > From: Tomasz Maciej Nowak [mailto:tome...@o2.pl] > Sent: Dienstag, 10. Dezember 2019 14:39 > To: Adrian Schmutzler ; openwrt- > de...@lists.openwrt.org > Subject: Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH 2/2] sunxi: construct DTS name from > device node name and SOC > > Hi

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Inquery

suck it On 11/12/2019, rqgxfc wrote: > > > Hello Sir ， > > We are a trading company named Shaanxi Hao Zi Guan Materials Co.,Ltd . Now > we are very interested in your products , we will plan to sell your > products in the Chinese market . If you are interested in cooperation, > please send us

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] mac80211: switch to upstream owl-loader driver

This commit broke wifi on the Buffalo WZR600DHP. See: https://bugs.openwrt.org/index.php?do=details_id=2668 On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 12:00 PM Christian Lamparter wrote: > On Monday, 18 November 2019 00:34:01 CET Hauke Mehrtens wrote: > > > +---

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Requesting a custom firmware for a router

On 11/12/19 07:17, John Wick wrote: Kind request to upload the custom firmware for router model TP-LINK TD-W8951ND v5.0 if possible OpenWrt for that device is impossible. Device is using unsupported CPU (Ralink RT63365E) has 8MB RAM (which is less than half of the minimum required) and