Hey
I have tried do get openwrt working on my Fritzbox. Openwrt will start
Network and VDSL Modem is working. But WLAN ist not working. The Chip is
supported bei the ath9k driver. Any hint how I can get Wifi working ?
The board is based on a Lantiq vr9 soc.
Here are my bootlogs and patches a
Hi Chun-Yeow,
On Sat, May 07, 2016 at 01:31:24AM +0800, Yeoh Chun-Yeow wrote:
> I think that it is alright if we solely depends on the wap_supplicant
> for both open mesh and secured mesh.
That would certainly work just as well, however, it would require
that people have wpa_supplicant-mesh or wp
On 6 May 2016 at 21:43, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
> On 6 May 2016 at 15:47, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
>>
>> I've created a OpenWRT ticket[1] on this issue, as it seems that someone[2]
>> closed Felix'es OpenWRT email account (bad choice! emails bouncing).
>> Sounds like OpenWRT and the LEDE https
On 6 May 2016 at 15:47, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
>
> I've created a OpenWRT ticket[1] on this issue, as it seems that someone[2]
> closed Felix'es OpenWRT email account (bad choice! emails bouncing).
> Sounds like OpenWRT and the LEDE https://www.lede-project.org/ project
> is in some kind of
Hi List,
For your amusement. Anyone want to PandoraBox is using OpenWrt ;-)
(That is I have no affilation with PandoraBox; their CI screwed up).
Regards,
Daniel
Forwarded Message
Subject: Build failed in Jenkins: PandoraBoxFireware »
PandoraBox_Build_Beta » MT7628,Linux #14
I think that it is alright if we solely depends on the wap_supplicant
for both open mesh and secured mesh.
Chun-Yeow
On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Daniel Golle wrote:
> On Sat, May 07, 2016 at 01:01:30AM +0800, Yeoh Chun-Yeow wrote:
>> authsae and wpa_supplicant only trigger if secured me
On Sat, May 07, 2016 at 01:01:30AM +0800, Yeoh Chun-Yeow wrote:
> authsae and wpa_supplicant only trigger if secured mesh.
> wpa_supplicant should work correctly for VHT80 but don't think
> authsae.
>
> But this patch is intended to allow open mesh to support VHT80.
So maybe only enable it if $key
authsae and wpa_supplicant only trigger if secured mesh.
wpa_supplicant should work correctly for VHT80 but don't think
authsae.
But this patch is intended to allow open mesh to support VHT80.
Thanks
Chun-Yeow
On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 12:53 AM, Daniel Golle wrote:
> Hi Chun-Yeow,
>
> On Sat
Hi Chun-Yeow,
On Sat, May 07, 2016 at 12:35:17AM +0800, Chun-Yeow Yeoh wrote:
> Add support of VHT80 setting for mesh interface
>
> Signed-off-by: Chun-Yeow Yeoh
> ---
> .../mac80211/files/lib/netifd/wireless/mac80211.sh | 33
> +++---
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 16 del
Add support of VHT80 setting for mesh interface
Signed-off-by: Chun-Yeow Yeoh
---
.../mac80211/files/lib/netifd/wireless/mac80211.sh | 33 +++---
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/package/kernel/mac80211/files/lib/netifd/wireless/mac80211.sh
b/packa
A little HW-mod applied to WT3020 makes it more usable.
Some people can buy it and need an updated OpenWRT.
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Antonov
---
diff --git a/openwrt_wt3020-16MB/target/linux/ramips/dts/WT3020-16M.dts
b/openwrt_wt3020-16MB/target/linux/ramips/dts/WT3020-16M.dts
new file mode 10064
On 16-05-06 07:53 AM, Imre Kaloz wrote:
> On Thu, 05 May 2016 18:24:09 +0200, Daniel Dickinson
> wrote:
>
>> On 16-05-05 12:21 PM, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> > The changes that the Lede guys are suggesting would be welcome,
>>> but
>>> > splitting the project and community with
Hi Imre,
I'm doing this a lot lately. I'm sorry for publicly making guesses,
stating impressions that were not fair to you. I do not know what the
truth is and trying divine the information with the little information I
have doesn't work, and is not fair.
Sorry.
Regards,
Daniel
__
So far fixtrx was calculating checksum over amount of data matching
partition erase size. It was mostly a workaround of checksum problem
after changing anything in initial TRX content (e.g. formatting JFFS2).
Its main purpose was to make bootloader accept modified TRX. This didn't
provide much prot
On Fri, 06 May 2016 12:50:32 +0200, John Crispin wrote:
the reboot was not meant to be hostile or disruptive to OpenWrt. we are
just code nerds and messed up the politics of the launch at some places,
which in itself shows one of the reasons that motivated the reboot. the
whole idea is to give
On Thu, 05 May 2016 17:44:43 +0200, Daniel Petre
wrote:
On 05/05/2016 06:38 PM, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
There is plenty of blame to go around, I think. Seems like the Lede
guys should have had the decency to at least inform the Openwrt
leadership privately that they were planning this ven
On Thu, 05 May 2016 18:24:09 +0200, Daniel Dickinson
wrote:
On 16-05-05 12:21 PM, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
[snip]
> The changes that the Lede guys are suggesting would be welcome,
but
> splitting the project and community with an ugly fork is very
much not
> welcome.
Let'
the reboot was not meant to be hostile or disruptive to OpenWrt. we are
just code nerds and messed up the politics of the launch at some places,
which in itself shows one of the reasons that motivated the reboot. the
whole idea is to give up our control over parts of the politics and
attract a new
I'm an outsider, have nothing to do with OpenWrt developement but
still work on few projects which depend on OpenWrt as awesome project
that enables us to do our projects (wifi mesh networking) but also do
professional jobs for clients using OpenWrt as embedded os for lots of
different applications
On 6 May 2016 at 03:53, Luka Perkov wrote:
>>On 2016-05-05 20:22, mbm wrote:
>>> On 5/5/2016 7:40 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
Many of the changes that we previously tried to introduce were often
squashed by internal disagreements. Resulting discussions often turned
toxic quickly and le
I sent them one too and got a response back almost immediately:
Hi Gareth,
Thanks for getting in touch with us!
I'll check with my internal team and get back to you once I have any updates.
Thanks!
Vann T
Ubiquiti Networks
That was a few hours ago, it will be interesting to see if they do
21 matches
Mail list logo
