-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 325
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
modules: switch to openwrt-23.05 #2920
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The devices removed also require to be removed from docs.
b43fc5b
to
cbbee77
Compare
I've gone over the patches which had been dropped until now. I've reapplied those which haven't been upstreamed since. While doing so i've noticed that within our 0004-ramips-mt7621-make-DSA-images-swconfig-upgradable.patch patch the Not sure how to handle this since this affects now more devices. But maybe this is no problem? idk Also someone needs to rebase the |
if this one |
@herbetom The DSA swconfig compat version patch can be dropped, we intended to carry it only for two releases which will conclude with the upcoming 2023.1.x branch. |
Okay, that's good. This also simplifies bumping later on. I've dropped |
but we need an |
@Djfe We would only need to do that if out intent was to allow direct updates from earlier versions then v2022.1 to the 23.05 based gluon (probably v2023.2). Therefore it's not required to patch the Hoewer we probably should look into wheter we have to override some interface assignments. |
I forgot how recent this switch was, ty |
I don't want to keep it, I'd love to get rid of it :-). But as long as Android is incapable of fixing their sh*t, I feel like I have to... Will look into updating it, thanks for the ping. |
Here's a rebase of "kernel-bridge-Implement-MLD-Querier-wake-up-calls-Android-bug-workaround" onto this next-23.05 branch: T-X@03c36d4 Relatively straight-forward, some variable passing changes were needed (esp. "br" => "brmctx->br" and "port" => "pmctx->port" in the Linux bridge code) . So far only compile-time tested. I (or someone else) still need(s) to runtime test it. |
|
@herbetom @mweinelt should be fixed in T-X@205d92e now. Changelog v2: added "CONFIG_BRIDGE_IGMP_SNOOPING_WAKEUPCALLS=y" to target/linux/generic/config-5.15. Also runtime tested now. |
I just found out that wifi rc1 worked fine for the random that I recommended the Asus tuf ax4200 to. i'm fairly certain most bugs were fixed in master by now but might not have been backported. all in all it could make sense to wait for rc3 what I haven't checked: 23-snapshot (which this is based on) EDIT: but there were also regressions related to mt76 and hostapd in master lately, parts of those landed in the release branch but not all of them are important to gluon (like issues with false 160MHz support). overall I changed my mind: I actually feel fine if you merge this. it allows us to figure out what needs fixing upstream. |
I edited my last post. I'm fine with this being merged. I need to confirm this still, but as a heads up:
in both cases target/linux failed to build |
Co-authored-by: David Bauer <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Linus Lüssing <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Tom Herbers <[email protected]>
The build process fails without that. Co-authored-by: Tom Herbers <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: David Bauer <[email protected]>
device fails to build
6c3e427
to
219a2e2
Compare
These boards do not support DSA in OpenWrt and thus lack working ethernet. Disable them for now. Co-authored-by: Tom Herbers <[email protected]>
OpenWrt dropped the nand string from filenames in the ipq40xx target [1]. Therefore it's no longer neccesary to work arround it in Gluon. [1] openwrt/openwrt@d9f7c75
Currently the build fails for the D-Link DIR-825 B1. THis is due to the factory image being size-constrained. The sysupgrade image is not affected, as OpenWrt now uses a concatenated firmware partition. To newly install such a device, please use the latest OpenWrt 22.03 factory image and install a Gluon sysupgrade. Signed-off-by: David Bauer <[email protected]>
@herbetom when did we decide to break upgrade compatibility more often and earlier than in the past? |
@rotanid I've currently got no reference for it but we've said, when they were added, that we would keep those DSA / Especially the MT7621 patch was always a hassle to rebase. And perfoming a manual |
my main concern is not that we want to change upgrade compatibility with v2023.2 , but that we did with v2023.1 |
@rotanid If you think that's an issue i would suggest opening an seperate Issue/PR. If you feel stronlgy you could try figuring out why v2023.1 can only be upgraded from v2021.1 and not v2020.1. Maybe those barriers can be removed for v2023.1.x retroactively. Breaking compatibilty with the upcoming v2023.2 for anything earlier then v2022.1 makes sense in my eyes. But maybe it's not so clear with v2023.1. For the future it could make sense to have an "upgradeable_from" file/value somewhere in the repo which contains the current version from which upgrades are supported. That would allow quite easy tracking via git and it would also improve the workflow arround creating release notes. |
@rotanid I've had a look into the issue on ipq40xx While the next release will in fact not be a drop-in replacement (sorry, i misunderstood your point in there), it will be able to be installed starting from Gluon v2022.1.x, as this is the first version to skip the minor compat hack in place. freifunk-gluon/packages@b804281 My above comment was written hastily. If we are fine with this, we do not need additional work for ipq40xx update case. If we want to target older versions, we need to carry hacks for ramips as well as ipq40xx, which i look at as a burden to big to carry. At least i have no interest in fixing this mess over multiple releases now. So if this path is taken, i expect someone to step up and keep this alive and maintained. Thoughts? |
Earlier on in the state of this PR i rebased the neccesary patches to keep upgradability similar: herbetom@a6c0eb7 Maybe it helps someone. But i don't think those should be upstreamed and stay arround. That v2023.1.x and v2022.1.x don't share the version from which they can be upgraded is of course not ideal. |
just a test for now