On 09/12/2016 10:08, p.wa...@gmx.at wrote:
>> looks like the link to privatedns.org is causing this.
>
> I've just checked on the web server's access log: there
> was no bot checking the contents of my site, so it must really be
> related to the URI itself.
>
> As this is not the first time, I'
> looks like the link to privatedns.org is causing this.
I've just checked on the web server's access log: there
was no bot checking the contents of my site, so it must really be
related to the URI itself.
As this is not the first time, I'm sending these URIs to the list,
this 'feature' must have
looks like the link to privatedns.org is causing this.
amazing feature, who wants to send a mail with a privatedns.org to lkml ?
On 09/12/2016 09:59, John Crispin wrote:
>
>
> On 09/12/2016 09:40, p.wa...@gmx.at wrote:
>>> Done. Pushed the cleanup commit to my staging tree
>>
>> Thank you, Fe
On 09/12/2016 09:40, p.wa...@gmx.at wrote:
>> Done. Pushed the cleanup commit to my staging tree
>
> Thank you, Felix. This commit works perfectly on DT boards :)
> (I did not test it on non-DT devices)
>
> In the meantime I've prepared DT things here:
> https://github.com/p-wassi/lede-source/t
> Done. Pushed the cleanup commit to my staging tree
Thank you, Felix. This commit works perfectly on DT boards :)
(I did not test it on non-DT devices)
In the meantime I've prepared DT things here:
https://github.com/p-wassi/lede-source/tree/ath79_devicetree
This branch is compile-tested and ru
On 2016-12-08 19:16, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> On 2016-12-08 18:52, p.wa...@gmx.at wrote:
>>> Can you please share your work by putting it up in a tree somewhere?
>>
>> So should I create a fork of lede-project/source then (on github)?
>> Keep in mind, it was/is just a proof of concept and still a lo
On 2016-12-08 18:52, p.wa...@gmx.at wrote:
>> Can you please share your work by putting it up in a tree somewhere?
>
> So should I create a fork of lede-project/source then (on github)?
> Keep in mind, it was/is just a proof of concept and still a lot of work
> has to be done for clean DT-hooks an
On 2016-12-08 18:27, p.wa...@gmx.at wrote:
>> I think it should not be too hard to support both DT and non-DT devices
>> with the same kernel.
>
> Also, in ar71xx patches, there's the
> 001-revert_spi_device_tree_support.patch
> which was introduced by Felix when switching to 4.4.
> (I've removed
> Can you please share your work by putting it up in a tree somewhere?
So should I create a fork of lede-project/source then (on github)?
Keep in mind, it was/is just a proof of concept and still a lot of work
has to be done for clean DT-hooks and other SoCs.
But I'll split the changes into logica
On 08/12/2016 18:06, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> On 2016-12-08 17:31, John Crispin wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> i was planning to start working on this in early 2017. i was hoping that
>> rather than converting ar71xx to DT we simply create a new target called
>> ath79 and start moving board support over from
On 08/12/2016 18:28, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> On 2016-12-08 18:17, John Crispin wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 08/12/2016 18:10, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>>> On 2016-12-08 18:08, John Crispin wrote:
On 08/12/2016 18:06, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> On 2016-12-08 17:31, John Crispin wrote:
>> Hi,
>
> > how would that be confusing ? i would argue the exact opposite
> Because suddenly there are two targets and you have to look up which
> device is supported by which target.
We'd just fill ath79 with supported targets and can discuss, whether these
supported devices should then disappear in ar7
On 2016-12-08 18:17, John Crispin wrote:
>
>
> On 08/12/2016 18:10, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>> On 2016-12-08 18:08, John Crispin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 08/12/2016 18:06, Felix Fietkau wrote:
On 2016-12-08 17:31, John Crispin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> i was planning to start working on this in
> I think it should not be too hard to support both DT and non-DT devices
> with the same kernel.
Also, in ar71xx patches, there's the
001-revert_spi_device_tree_support.patch
which was introduced by Felix when switching to 4.4.
(I've removed this patch now to get the SPI-NOR flash working)
Witho
On 2016-12-08 18:08, John Crispin wrote:
>
>
> On 08/12/2016 18:06, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>> On 2016-12-08 17:31, John Crispin wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> i was planning to start working on this in early 2017. i was hoping that
>>> rather than converting ar71xx to DT we simply create a new target calle
On 08/12/2016 18:10, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> On 2016-12-08 18:08, John Crispin wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 08/12/2016 18:06, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>>> On 2016-12-08 17:31, John Crispin wrote:
Hi,
i was planning to start working on this in early 2017. i was hoping that
rather than convert
> rather than converting ar71xx to DT we simply create a new target called
> ath79 and start moving board support over from the legacy to the new
> target. this would allow us to make the ath79 target much cleaner than
> having to worry about legacy cruft.
That's what I meant with ar71xx-dt :) Yea
On 2016-12-08 17:31, John Crispin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> i was planning to start working on this in early 2017. i was hoping that
> rather than converting ar71xx to DT we simply create a new target called
> ath79 and start moving board support over from the legacy to the new
> target. this would allow u
On 08/12/2016 17:17, p.wa...@gmx.at wrote:
> Hi,
>
> one of the open ToDos for LEDE is 'Convert ar71xx to devicetree'.
> In the last weeks, I've tried some stuff to get myself an idea of what
> needs to be done. Currently, I'm in this state:
> -) AR9331 devices (TL-WR740-v4, TL-WR741-v4, TL-MR30
Hi,
one of the open ToDos for LEDE is 'Convert ar71xx to devicetree'.
In the last weeks, I've tried some stuff to get myself an idea of what
needs to be done. Currently, I'm in this state:
-) AR9331 devices (TL-WR740-v4, TL-WR741-v4, TL-MR3020) boot up fine with DTB,
-) (All?) of the device's hard
20 matches
Mail list logo
