Jonathan McCrohan wrote:
> Is there even a need to produce an oversize image warning? I'm not aware
> of any other architecture that refuses to build over a certain size. x86
> being the obvious exception, but that is different because it doesn't
> target any particular device, but a whole architec
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 5:15 AM, Mark Mentovai wrote:
>> Of course. It's failing while attempting to build a WNDR3700 (v1)
>> image, because there's no way to produce an image for WNDR3700 this
>> large. It'd never fit in its flash. I believe it's correct to produce
>> an error in this case. What y
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 5:15 AM, Mark Mentovai wrote:
> Jonathan McCrohan wrote:
>> Would you mind having another look at this patch as a priority, as it
>> causes images larger than 8MB to FTBFS.
>>
>> While this obviously is not a problem for the WNDR3700, it is a problem
>> for the WNDR3700v2 an
Jonathan McCrohan wrote:
> Would you mind having another look at this patch as a priority, as it
> causes images larger than 8MB to FTBFS.
>
> While this obviously is not a problem for the WNDR3700, it is a problem
> for the WNDR3700v2 and WNDR3800, both of which have 16MB of flash.
>
> Attached is
Hi Mark,
On 29/11/11 18:51, Dave Taht wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Mark Mentovai wrote:
>> Jonathan Bennett wrote:
>>> This patch seems like a really good idea for the ar71xx family. What
>>> sorts of problems are preventing this from being implemented? As small
>>> as it sounds, an
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Mark Mentovai wrote:
> Jonathan Bennett wrote:
>> This patch seems like a really good idea for the ar71xx family. What
>> sorts of problems are preventing this from being implemented? As small
>> as it sounds, an extra 192k would be really useful on quite a few
>>
Jonathan Bennett wrote:
> This patch seems like a really good idea for the ar71xx family. What
> sorts of problems are preventing this from being implemented? As small
> as it sounds, an extra 192k would be really useful on quite a few
> routers.
I don't know of any actual problems with the patch.
This patch seems like a really good idea for the ar71xx family. What
sorts of problems are preventing this from being implemented? As small
as it sounds, an extra 192k would be really useful on quite a few
routers.
~Jonathan Bennett
___
openwrt-devel mai
Dave Taht wrote:
> Awesome. However I'd like to somehow make for fully field-upgradable
> kernels for this device (how to do that?), and reserving 64k strikes
> me as too small to account for future growth.
It doesn't reserve 64kB. It doesn't really reserve anything at all.
There can be as little
Awesome. However I'd like to somehow make for fully field-upgradable
kernels for this device (how to do that?), and reserving 64k strikes
me as too small to account for future growth.
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Mark Mentovai wrote:
> This replaces the fixed flash layout currently used on th
This replaces the fixed flash layout currently used on the WNDR3700
family with one whose mtd partition sizes are computed dynamically.
Rather than reserving 1MB for the kernel regardless of its actual space
requirements, this computes an appropriate size for the kernel, rounded
up to a 64kB erase
11 matches
Mail list logo
