On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 02:43:08AM +0100, Joseph Mullally wrote:
> On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 7:35 AM Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> >
> > The last generic OpenWRT x86 5.15 image I built less than a week ago
> > produced a roughly 28MB vmlinux.bin file. Some of that disappears since
> > initialization
On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 7:35 AM Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 03:50:05AM +0100, Daniel Golle wrote:
> > On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 06:36:10PM -0700, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 02:45:43AM +0200, Alberto Bursi wrote:
> > > > On 26/04/23 22:17, Elliott
On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 03:50:05AM +0100, Daniel Golle wrote:
> On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 06:36:10PM -0700, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> > On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 02:45:43AM +0200, Alberto Bursi wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 26/04/23 22:17, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> > > > Well, was a specific objective
Hi
On 2023-05-03, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 02:45:43AM +0200, Alberto Bursi wrote:
> > On 26/04/23 22:17, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
[...]
> > Then there is the virtualized drivers that were just added to the kernel
> > and not properly modulized, maybe it was easier like
On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 06:36:10PM -0700, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 02:45:43AM +0200, Alberto Bursi wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 26/04/23 22:17, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> > > Well, was a specific objective ever chosen for the x86 version of
> > > OpenWRT?
> > >
> > > I can
On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 02:45:43AM +0200, Alberto Bursi wrote:
>
>
> On 26/04/23 22:17, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> > Well, was a specific objective ever chosen for the x86 version of
> > OpenWRT?
> >
> > I can state my goal/hope for OpenWRT/x86. The *WRT Linux distributions
> > were so named
> On May 1, 2023, at 6:59 PM, Alberto Bursi wrote:
>
>
>
> On 01/05/23 06:40, Philip Prindeville wrote:
>>> On Apr 28, 2023, at 11:18 PM, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 12:04:15PM -0600, Philip Prindeville wrote:
> [snip]
>>>
See above: the radios
On 26/04/23 22:17, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
Well, was a specific objective ever chosen for the x86 version of
OpenWRT?
I can state my goal/hope for OpenWRT/x86. The *WRT Linux distributions
were so named for originally targeting the LinkSys WRT54G. This was a
small AP, so one might expect
On 01/05/23 06:40, Philip Prindeville wrote:
On Apr 28, 2023, at 11:18 PM, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 12:04:15PM -0600, Philip Prindeville wrote:
[snip]
See above: the radios and antennae I can get as add-ons for a Xeon-D 1U pizza
box or even an APU6 mPCIe
> On May 1, 2023, at 9:32 AM, Daniel Golle wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 01, 2023 at 09:01:29AM -0600, Philip Prindeville wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On May 1, 2023, at 8:12 AM, Joseph Mullally wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 5:43 AM Philip Prindeville
>>> wrote:
> On Apr 28, 2023, at 11:18 PM,
On Mon, May 01, 2023 at 09:01:29AM -0600, Philip Prindeville wrote:
>
>
> > On May 1, 2023, at 8:12 AM, Joseph Mullally wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 5:43 AM Philip Prindeville
> > wrote:
> >>> On Apr 28, 2023, at 11:18 PM, Elliott Mitchell
> >>> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2023
> On May 1, 2023, at 8:12 AM, Joseph Mullally wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 5:43 AM Philip Prindeville
> wrote:
>>> On Apr 28, 2023, at 11:18 PM, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 12:04:15PM -0600, Philip Prindeville wrote:
>
Um... you can't "virtualize" WiFi in
On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 5:43 AM Philip Prindeville
wrote:
>> On Apr 28, 2023, at 11:18 PM, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 12:04:15PM -0600, Philip Prindeville wrote:
>>> Um... you can't "virtualize" WiFi in any VM I've ever seen.
>>
>> You can though pass PCIe devices to a
> On Apr 28, 2023, at 11:18 PM, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 12:04:15PM -0600, Philip Prindeville wrote:
>>
>>> [snip]
>
>> See above: the radios and antennae I can get as add-ons for a Xeon-D 1U
>> pizza box or even an APU6 mPCIe slot are vastly inferior to what ODM
On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 12:04:15PM -0600, Philip Prindeville wrote:
>
> > On Apr 26, 2023, at 2:17 PM, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> >
> > Well, was a specific objective ever chosen for the x86 version of
> > OpenWRT?
>
> Does it need one? As the most ubiquitous hardware out there for many users,
As you point out elsewhere, this "optional builtin modules" problem is
typically solved with bootstrapping initrd images. But adding something like
initramfs-tools or dracut into OpenWrt would be over complicating things, since
the current x86/64 images seem to suit everyone.
On Sat, Apr 29, 2023 at 3:29 AM Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> I'm looking at the list of built-in drivers and seeing many which
> will perhaps only be used by 25% of installations.
That figure seems hypothetical, but you would propose to break 25% of users
installations for insignificant memory
On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 05:04:36AM +0100, Joseph Mullally wrote:
> One nice feature for users of the "x86/64" and similar builds are that
> they work out of the box on most generic hardware or virtualization
> platforms. I use it on real hardware and KVM with device passthrough,
> and it was very
> On Apr 26, 2023, at 2:17 PM, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
>
> Well, was a specific objective ever chosen for the x86 version of
> OpenWRT?
Does it need one? As the most ubiquitous hardware out there for many users,
why would we need to box it in?
Someone might want to throw a generic image
One nice feature for users of the "x86/64" and similar builds are that
they work out of the box on most generic hardware or virtualization
platforms. I use it on real hardware and KVM with device passthrough,
and it was very easy to set up. I'm guessing this is far more common
than speculative
20 matches
Mail list logo
