Hi,
> Are any of you using the affected TP-Link boards or ath79/tiny or
> 4 MiB devices in general? What features do you actually pack in them?
> Do you plan to continue doing so past 19.XX release?
>
> If no users speak up probably it's better to remove all the support code
> altogether to
On 01/01/20 15:02, Petr Štetiar wrote:
Alberto Bursi [2020-01-01 03:30:34]:
Hi,
A LOT of OpenWrt userbase does not follow the mailing lists (or even know
what a mailing list is), so if you want to have the full picture please
visit the forum as well.
users dont know/use mailing lists,
Alberto Bursi [2020-01-01 03:30:34]:
Hi,
> A LOT of OpenWrt userbase does not follow the mailing lists (or even know
> what a mailing list is), so if you want to have the full picture please
> visit the forum as well.
users dont know/use mailing lists, developers hate to waste time with the
Paul Fertser [2019-12-28 17:00:49]:
> 2. Fix BLOCKSIZE for those boards that are consistent, document
> possible config loss for the others;
What about some DTS based solution? I mean, explicitly enable 4K on the
devices which are known (or likely) to work.
-- ynezz
David Bauer [2019-12-31 16:20:29]:
Hi,
> release images will not be built for most (if not all), as a full build with
> LuCI
> will not fit into the flash (even with 4K sector size).
one could still use image builder and generate images which would fit.
OpenWrt offers currently following
On 31/12/19 16:29, Paul Fertser wrote:
Hello David,
On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 04:20:29PM +0100, David Bauer wrote:
If no users speak up probably it's better to remove all the support
code altogether to avoid wasting maintainers' time on it?
The code is not really an issue, as there's not
Am 31.12.2019 um 21:15 schrieb Paul Fertser:
Hello gents,
On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 02:41:12PM +0100, Piotr Dymacz wrote:
On 12/30/19 12:42 PM, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
Hi,
given that (binary release) support for 4MB devices will end with 19.07,
I'd vote for reverting the 4K sector change in
Hello David,
On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 04:20:29PM +0100, David Bauer wrote:
> > If no users speak up probably it's better to remove all the support
> > code altogether to avoid wasting maintainers' time on it?
>
> The code is not really an issue, as there's not much code dedicated for 4M
>
Hello Paul,
On 12/31/19 3:15 PM, Paul Fertser wrote:
> Are any of you using the affected TP-Link boards or ath79/tiny or
> 4 MiB devices in general? What features do you actually pack in them?
> Do you plan to continue doing so past 19.XX release?
I think most regular developers do not really
Hello gents,
On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 02:41:12PM +0100, Piotr Dymacz wrote:
> > On 12/30/19 12:42 PM, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > given that (binary release) support for 4MB devices will end with 19.07,
> > > I'd vote for reverting the 4K sector change in ath79 and stick with 64K
Hi David, Jo,
On 30.12.2019 14:22, David Bauer wrote:
Hello,
On 12/30/19 12:42 PM, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
Hi,
given that (binary release) support for 4MB devices will end with 19.07,
I'd vote for reverting the 4K sector change in ath79 and stick with 64K
ones as common denominator across the
Hello,
On 12/30/19 12:42 PM, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> given that (binary release) support for 4MB devices will end with 19.07,
> I'd vote for reverting the 4K sector change in ath79 and stick with 64K
> ones as common denominator across the entire target. That will be the
> least
Hi,
given that (binary release) support for 4MB devices will end with 19.07,
I'd vote for reverting the 4K sector change in ath79 and stick with 64K
ones as common denominator across the entire target. That will be the
least invasive and most robust fix.
Regards,
Jo
signature.asc
Description:
Hi,
Status quo summary:
Many ath79/tiny devices will lose configs (almost) each time
sysupgrading. This is easy to fix for most of the boards that
consistently have compatible flash memory ICs (some TP-Links are not
elements of this set). The only easy fix for all the boards is to
revert the 4K
14 matches
Mail list logo
