On 10/5/21 12:32 PM, camden lindsay wrote:
Is - ipq807x  a typo? i don't see this target in the snapshots... is it really ipq806x?

many thanks


On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 3:14 PM Paul Spooren <m...@aparcar.org <mailto:m...@aparcar.org>> wrote:

    Hi all,

    based on my overview[1] things are moving forward and being tested,
    great! What about the targets that did not see any 5.10 ambitions
    yet?
    Specifically:

    - arc770
    - archs38
    - ath25
    - bcm47xx
    - bcm4908
    - ipq807x
    - layerscape

For now layerscape is still on 5.4 without Kernel 5.10 support. Is anyone planing to add support? Please reach out.

    - pistachio
    - uml

    Is anyone aware of people working on those targets? Please let me
    know.

    Best,
    Paul

    [1]: https://github.com/aparcar/openwrt/issues/15
    <https://github.com/aparcar/openwrt/issues/15>

    On 9/29/21 10:28, Hauke Mehrtens wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > The OpenWrt 21.02 release is done and we should plan the next
    release.
    > We already talked about this in the last meeting, see
    > https://openwrt.org/meetings/20210920
    <https://openwrt.org/meetings/20210920>
    >
    > To monitor the current state I created this wiki page based on the
    > wiki page from the previous release:
    > https://openwrt.org/docs/guide-developer/releases/goals/22.xx
    <https://openwrt.org/docs/guide-developer/releases/goals/22.xx>
    >
    > I would like to get an overview about the "big" changes, if an
    > additional board is added or something is improved we do not
    need to
    > plan it.
    >
    > I would like to get the following:
    >
    > kernel 5.10:
    > We should get all targets to kernel 5.10. All targets which are
    not on
    > kernel 5.10 when we branch off should get removed.
    >
    > Kernel version for all targets:
    > Kernel 5.10 (only):
    >  bmips
    > Kernel 5.10 (5.4 still present):
    >  bcm27xx bcm53xx gemini ipq806x mediatek mvebu x86
    > Testing 5.10:
    >  apm821xx armvirt ath79 bcm63xx imx6 ipq40xx kirkwood lantiq malta
    >  mpc85xx mxs octeon octeontx oxnas ramips realtek rockchip sunxi
    tegra
    > Kernel 5.4 only:
    >  arc770 archs38 at91 ath25 bcm47xx bcm4908 ipq807x layerscape omap
    > pistachio uml zynq
    >
    > toolchain:
    > We already updated the toolchain in master to GCC 11.2, binutils
    2.37
    > and musl 1.2.2. This looks good to me. Minor version updates of
    musl
    > libc later should be ok. gdb and glibc could also be update
    later if
    > someone wants to do it.
    >
    > mac80211:
    > I would like to update the mac80211 version we use to match the
    code
    > from kernel 5.15 or whatever will be the next LTS kernel. I haven't
    > started yet.
    >
    > DSA:
    > We will migrate some more boards to DSA, the lantiq/xrx200
    target is
    > using DSA in master now. It looks like some boards with qca8k would
    > switch. These changes should be local to one target or even board
    > anyway. The infrastructure is already provided. This can continue
    > without much coordination and we can see what is finished when
    we branch.
    >
    > firewall4:
    > OpenWrt master contains firewall4 optionally which uses nftables
    > instead of iptables. It uses the same configuration as
    firewall3, the
    > old configuration should still work. Custom iptables extensions
    should
    > also still work when we use iptables-nft which supports the
    iptables
    > user interface and generates nftables rules, even Debian stable
    uses
    > iptables-nft by default. Flow offloading (software and hardware) is
    > supported by upstream kernel when nftables is used, we are
    currently
    > using a patch to make it "work" with iptables too.
    >
    > We have to activate it by default and deactivate firewall3.
    > We probably need some minor modifications to LuCi to show the
    current
    > nftables firewall status. This is not device depended like DSA,
    we can
    > easily test this on one device and it should work the same way
    on all
    > others.
    >
    > LuCi:
    > What is still needed in LuCi?
    >
    >
    > Is there anything else which is blocking, should be added or
    needs a
    > discussion?
    >
    > Hauke
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > openwrt-devel mailing list
    > openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
    <mailto:openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org>
    > https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
    <https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel>

    _______________________________________________
    openwrt-devel mailing list
    openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
    <mailto:openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org>
    https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
    <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

Reply via email to