Hello,
The following patch (submitted by you) has been updated in patchwork:
* lede: [LEDE-DEV,1/2] firmware: add firmware for rtl8821ae support
- http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/764814/
- for: LEDE development
was: New
now: Accepted
This email is a notification only - you d
On 14 March 2017 at 07:37, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> My current DTS file contains following entry:
> bootargs = "console=ttyS0,115200"
> and it works in a following way:
>
> Press the [f] key and hit [enter] to enter failsafe mode
> Press the [1], [2], [3] or [4] key and hit [enter] to select the deb
> On May 21, 2017, at 10:03 AM, Daniel Golle wrote:
>
> Hi Rafal,
>
> On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 05:02:44PM +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I noticed commit 0dcc36fc7ddec ("kernel: add hwmon for W83627EHF and
>> family") in the LEDE tree that doesn't look OK to me.
>>
>> 1) Package for
Hi Rafal,
On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 05:02:44PM +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed commit 0dcc36fc7ddec ("kernel: add hwmon for W83627EHF and
> family") in the LEDE tree that doesn't look OK to me.
>
> 1) Package for hwmon-w83627ehf
> Do we need it to be a package? Or could it be built
Ralph,
Am 21.05.2017 um 14:23 schrieb Ralph Sennhauser:
> If the seeded ubifs could be generalized to snapshot support ala btrfs
> that would change things a lot as it would enable uses far beyond just
> factory reset. No idea how feasible that is but might be worth
> considering instead.
I thoug
Hi,
I noticed commit 0dcc36fc7ddec ("kernel: add hwmon for W83627EHF and
family") in the LEDE tree that doesn't look OK to me.
1) Package for hwmon-w83627ehf
Do we need it to be a package? Or could it be built-in into the kernel?
Do we need it to be a global package? Usually hwmon drivers are
des
> Hi, thanks for pointing that out.
> > Can we get cpufreq, ondemand scaler, and default=ondemand for this
> > platform / two targets? If needed I can submit a patch / signoff, or
> > if there is a reason this should not be done I'd love to start a
> > discussion about it.
> Please test a build fro
Hi Richard
On Sun, 21 May 2017 10:40:05 +0200
Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Geert,
>
> Am 21.05.2017 um 10:37 schrieb Geert Uytterhoeven:
> > On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Ralph Sennhauser
> > wrote:
> >> There is also the size consideration. Unless a seeded ubifs can get
> >> close to squa
Geert,
Am 21.05.2017 um 10:37 schrieb Geert Uytterhoeven:
> On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Ralph Sennhauser
> wrote:
>> There is also the size consideration. Unless a seeded ubifs can get
>> close to squashfs in terms of compression there would still be a
>> use-case for squashfs with an ubifs
On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Ralph Sennhauser
wrote:
> There is also the size consideration. Unless a seeded ubifs can get
> close to squashfs in terms of compression there would still be a
> use-case for squashfs with an ubifs overlay. My current root as ubifs
> instead of squashfs is 76.8% b
current LuCI defaults set the former for each individual share.
The latter is an inverted synonym for read only, which is
configurable through LuCI.
Signed-off by: Rosen Penev
---
package/network/services/samba36/files/smb.conf.template | 2 --
1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/packag
11 matches
Mail list logo
