Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] AR8334 switch support
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 5:15 AM, Christian Mehlis 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] Request for Feedback - prplwrt Software Support Program - initial draft
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 party software and serv
Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Request for Feedback - prplwrt Software Support Program - initial draft
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:23 AM, xxiao8 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
[OpenWrt-Devel] prpl sync 3/31/16
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
[OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWrt enhancement ideas -- opportunity for prpl funding -- deadline May 18
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
Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project
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
Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Daniel Dickinson 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
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] OpenWrt / LEDE
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 the perspective
Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] update config.guess & config.sub
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] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE
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] Why OpenWrt sucks?
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Charlie Smurthwaite 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
Re: OpenWrt One - celebrating 20 years of OpenWrt
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
