Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Inquery

Rosen Penev schreef op 11 december 2019 22:17:34 CET: >On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 11:32 AM Alberto Bursi > wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/12/19 18:54, Daniel Golle wrote: >> > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 05:37:26PM +0100, WRT Burner wrote: >> >> On 11/12/2019 15:22, Daniel Golle wrote: >> >>> And it's even nee

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Inquery

On Wednesday, 11 December 2019 15:22:09 CET Daniel Golle wrote: > Hi Tomislav, > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 11:24:21AM +0100, Tom Psyborg wrote: > > suck it > > As a community, we decided to give our self a set of minimal rules[1]. > And even though it is in the last position, rule #12 "Be nice to

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Inquery

> -Original Message- > From: openwrt-devel [mailto:openwrt-devel-boun...@lists.openwrt.org] > On Behalf Of Daniel Golle > Sent: Mittwoch, 11. Dezember 2019 15:22 > To: Tom Psyborg > Cc: openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org > Subject: Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Inquery > > Hi Tomislav, > > On Wed, De

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Inquery

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 11:32 AM Alberto Bursi wrote: > > > > On 11/12/19 18:54, Daniel Golle wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 05:37:26PM +0100, WRT Burner wrote: > >> On 11/12/2019 15:22, Daniel Golle wrote: > >>> And it's even needless to say that > >>> replying to a spam email in which ever w

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Inquery

On 11/12/2019, Daniel Golle wrote: > Hi Tomislav, > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 11:24:21AM +0100, Tom Psyborg wrote: >> suck it > > As a community, we decided to give our self a set of minimal rules[1]. > And even though it is in the last position, rule #12 "Be nice to each > other." is meant just a

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] (no subject)

Hi, Have you checked https://openwrt.org/trademark ? Cheers! El 11/12/19 a les 20:43, sagar jain ha escrit: > > Can i sell OpenWRT based router ? > >   > > Sent from Mail for > Windows 10 > >   > > > ___

[OpenWrt-Devel] (no subject)

Can i sell OpenWRT based router ? Sent from Mail for Windows 10 ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Inquery

On 11/12/19 18:54, Daniel Golle wrote: On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 05:37:26PM +0100, WRT Burner wrote: On 11/12/2019 15:22, Daniel Golle wrote: And it's even needless to say that replying to a spam email in which ever way will always make it worse. +1. There is no constructive value in replyin

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] kernel: ath10k-ct: provide a build variant for small RAM devices

On 12/11/19 11:16 AM, Paul Fertser wrote: Hey Ben, On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 10:06:26AM -0800, Ben Greear wrote: On 12/11/19 6:44 AM, Paul Fertser wrote: According to many bugreports [0][1][2] the default ath10k-ct kernel ... And also if you want to just have the makefile pass a -DBUILD_ATH10K

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] kernel: ath10k-ct: provide a build variant for small RAM devices

Hey Ben, On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 10:06:26AM -0800, Ben Greear wrote: > On 12/11/19 6:44 AM, Paul Fertser wrote: > > According to many bugreports [0][1][2] the default ath10k-ct kernel ... > And also if you want to just have the makefile pass a -DBUILD_ATH10K_SMALL or > something > like that and #

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] kernel: ath10k-ct: provide a build variant for small RAM devices

On 12/11/19 6:44 AM, Paul Fertser wrote: According to many bugreports [0][1][2] the default ath10k-ct kernel module is unusable on devices with just 64 MiB RAM or with 128 MiB and dual ath10k cards. The target boards boot but eventually oom-killer starts to interfere with normal operation, so the

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Inquery

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 05:37:26PM +0100, WRT Burner wrote: > On 11/12/2019 15:22, Daniel Golle wrote: > > And it's even needless to say that > > replying to a spam email in which ever way will always make it worse. > > +1. There is no constructive value in replying to spam. Let's keep > openwrt-

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Inquery

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 3:22 PM Daniel Golle wrote: > > Hi Tomislav, > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 11:24:21AM +0100, Tom Psyborg wrote: > > suck it > > As a community, we decided to give our self a set of minimal rules[1]. > And even though it is in the last position, rule #12 "Be nice to each > oth

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Inquery

On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 at 15:22, Daniel Golle wrote: > As a community, we decided to give our self a set of minimal rules[1]. > And even though it is in the last position, rule #12 "Be nice to each > other." is meant just as serious as all the other rules. > > So here, not for the first time, you are

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Inquery

On 11/12/2019 15:22, Daniel Golle wrote: > And it's even needless to say that > replying to a spam email in which ever way will always make it worse. +1. There is no constructive value in replying to spam. Let's keep openwrt-devel nice and clean. On 11/12/2019 15:22, Daniel Golle wrote: > You sta

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Inquery

> Please learn to behave or leave us alone. +2 -- ynezz ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Inquery

On 11.12.2019 15:22, Daniel Golle wrote: As a community, we decided to give our self a set of minimal rules[1]. And even though it is in the last position, rule #12 "Be nice to each other." is meant just as serious as all the other rules. So here, not for the first time, you are using language

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] kernel: ath10k-ct: provide a build variant for small RAM devices

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 05:44:59PM +0300, Paul Fertser wrote: > +define Build/Patch > + $(if $(QUILT),rm -rf $(PKG_BUILD_DIR)/patches; mkdir -p > $(PKG_BUILD_DIR)/patches) > + $(call PatchDir,$(PKG_BUILD_DIR),$(PATCH_DIR),) > +ifeq ($(BUILD_VARIANT),smallbuffers) > + $(call > PatchDir

[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] kernel: ath10k-ct: provide a build variant for small RAM devices

According to many bugreports [0][1][2] the default ath10k-ct kernel module is unusable on devices with just 64 MiB RAM or with 128 MiB and dual ath10k cards. The target boards boot but eventually oom-killer starts to interfere with normal operation, so the current state is effectively broken. Sinc

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Inquery

On 11/12/2019 15:22, Daniel Golle wrote: As a community, we decided to give our self a set of minimal rules[1]. And even though it is in the last position, rule #12 "Be nice to each other." is meant just as serious as all the other rules. So here, not for the first time, you are using language w

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Inquery

Hi Tomislav, On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 11:24:21AM +0100, Tom Psyborg wrote: > suck it As a community, we decided to give our self a set of minimal rules[1]. And even though it is in the last position, rule #12 "Be nice to each other." is meant just as serious as all the other rules. So here, not f

[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH v4] This separates the options for signature creation and verification

* SIGNED_PACKAGES create Packages.sig * SIGNED_IMAGES add ucert signature to created images * CHECK_SIGNATURE add verification capabilities to images * INSTALL_LOCAL_KEY add local key-build to /etc/opkg/keys Right now the buildbot.git contains some hacks to create images that have signature verifi

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [RFC][PATCH] base-files: send informational UDP message each second waiting

Hi, > Question is, if it's worth the hassle for a feature which is targeted more > towards the expert users. from my pov - it is not worth overengineering this feature. The proposed patch is more than adequate. It increases the probability of the message getting delivered without additional code

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [RFC][PATCH] base-files: send informational UDP message each second waiting

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 12:47:22PM +0100, Petr Štetiar wrote: > Paul Fertser [2019-12-11 14:03:53]: > > Waiting with a timeout poses a question of what that timeout should be set > > to; and if that's reasonable to extend current 2 seconds with any > > significant amount. > > As you've witnessed

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [RFC][PATCH] base-files: send informational UDP message each second waiting

Paul Fertser [2019-12-11 14:03:53]: > Waiting with a timeout poses a question of what that timeout should be set > to; and if that's reasonable to extend current 2 seconds with any > significant amount. As you've witnessed this default value doesn't work well in some cases. > Current documentat

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] ath79: add D-Link DIR-615 rev. E4

Hello Lars, On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 03:12:02PM +0700, Lars Melin wrote: > On 11/8/2019 14:50, Paul Fertser wrote: > > From working with uIP before on an embedded target I know that it > > doesn't support delayed ACKs in any form, for any packet it sends it > > waits for an ACK before sending the

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [RFC][PATCH] base-files: send informational UDP message each second waiting

Hi, On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 03:42:13PM +0100, Petr Štetiar wrote: > Paul Fertser [2019-12-10 17:24:20]: > > in cases when the interface is brought up faster it leads to two messages > > in cases when the interface is brought up slower it leads to no message. > > To me it just seems like a worka

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH 2/2] sunxi: construct DTS name from device node name and SOC

Hi, > -Original Message- > From: Tomasz Maciej Nowak [mailto:tome...@o2.pl] > Sent: Dienstag, 10. Dezember 2019 14:39 > To: Adrian Schmutzler ; openwrt- > de...@lists.openwrt.org > Subject: Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH 2/2] sunxi: construct DTS name from > device node name and SOC > > Hi Ad

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Inquery

suck it On 11/12/2019, rqgxfc wrote: > > > Hello Sir ， > > We are a trading company named Shaanxi Hao Zi Guan Materials Co.,Ltd . Now > we are very interested in your products , we will plan to sell your > products in the Chinese market . If you are interested in cooperation, > please send us

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] mac80211: switch to upstream owl-loader driver

This commit broke wifi on the Buffalo WZR600DHP. See: https://bugs.openwrt.org/index.php?do=details&task_id=2668 On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 12:00 PM Christian Lamparter wrote: > On Monday, 18 November 2019 00:34:01 CET Hauke Mehrtens wrote: > > > +--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ath9k_pci_owl

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Requesting a custom firmware for a router

On 11/12/19 07:17, John Wick wrote: Kind request to upload the custom firmware for router model TP-LINK TD-W8951ND v5.0 if possible OpenWrt for that device is impossible. Device is using unsupported CPU (Ralink RT63365E) has 8MB RAM (which is less than half of the minimum required) and 2M