Hello Sven, On 9/18/20 1:27 AM, Sven Roederer wrote: > Adrian, David, > > Am Mittwoch, 16. September 2020, 16:15:42 CEST schrieb David Bauer: >> Hi, >> >> On 9/16/20 11:40 AM, Adrian Schmutzler wrote: >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: openwrt-devel [mailto:openwrt-devel-boun...@lists.openwrt.org] >>>> On Behalf Of Sven Roederer >>>> Sent: Mittwoch, 16. September 2020 09:17 >>>> To: openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org >>>> Subject: ath79: move 8/32 boards to tiny subtarget >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> not sure if this has been discussed before. >>>> I recently worked with some 8/32 boards (Ubiquiti Nanostation M (XM), >>>> TPLink >>>> WR842 v2) for our Freifunk-project and realized that the low RAM >>>> situation >>>> requires quite different handling than the full boards (8+/64+). >>>> >>>> I wonder if there is a reason to not move the boards, which are affected >>>> by >>>> the 4/32MB warning also, to the ath79-tiny target? >>> >>> I wonder whether the tiny subtarget will actually make much difference for >>> RAM issues? > > My idea based on the fact, to have an easy way to disable certain kernel- > features to reduce teh kernel-size (in flash and RAM). Candidates I see here > are: USB-Support, additional filesystems, block-devices, ... > Even some devices provide USB-connectors it might be better to have less OOM- > crashes and reboots than installing a usb-flashdrive. In our > Freifunk-Firmware > I've seen much less runtime-problems with a stripped down kernel. > With having the 8/32 in tiny it would just be a config-file for the low-RAM > boards. Having them in generic subtarget would require to build 2 kernels for > the same subtarget. > >> In it's current state, it will most likely increase low-memory issues as the >> squashfs blocksize is 1024kB compared to the regular 256kB. Not that >> ath79-tiny has no target-flag for small memory set. >> > > Did you miss an "e" ? "Note that ath79-tiny has ..." gives more sense to me. > Reading it this way, you expect the larger blocksize was choosen as tradeoff > between using the flash most efficient vs. RAM for the 4/32 boards? > I've seen there is a low_mem flag for some 16MB boards defined. It seems that > for some config-options SMALL_FLASH and LOW-MEM are conflicting.
Yes, there was an e missing. We've experienced severe system instabilities with larger blocksizes (the default one for ar71xx-tiny to be precise) downstream. [0] [1] However, In my opinion the blocksize upstream works well for people looking for a home router, as memory consumption is typically lower and some additional space is desirable there. I could also imagine the low-mem target feature and It's configuration implications have to be assessed as a whole, given it did not experience much use for a longer period of time. [0] https://github.com/freifunk-gluon/gluon/issues/2032 [1] https://github.com/freifunk-gluon/gluon/commit/7e8af99cf504ca1dc389f282a0c94f4a911571be Best wishes David > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
