OpenWrt Forum Archive

Topic: Update on Linksys WRT1900AC support

The content of this topic has been archived between 16 Sep 2014 and 7 May 2018. Unfortunately there are posts – most likely complete pages – missing.

LogicoZone wrote:
davidc502 wrote:

In make menuconfig, under kernel modules > Kryptographic API Modules > make sure that kmod-cryptodev is included in the build. It's the last one in the list.

Pardon me for the questions.

1. Once I have this enabled, do I have to modify openssl lib Makefile to utilize the cryptodev?
2. Do I need to have patch for mv-cesa installed and enabled?

Thanks.

1. When either vpn client or server is set up, choose "cryptodev" as the Engine.
2. Last I checked the patches are already in the sources, and compile fine. Yes, it will be enabled.

However, even with cryptodev enabled, I don't get great speeds... perhaps your configuration will differ.

davidc502 wrote:

1. When either vpn client or server is set up, choose "cryptodev" as the Engine.
2. Last I checked the patches are already in the sources, and compile fine. Yes, it will be enabled.

However, even with cryptodev enabled, I don't get great speeds... perhaps your configuration will differ.

I've had cryptodev module configured. However, for OpenVPN, I don't see an option to select the engine though.

iirc openvpn uses what openssl provides. There are some openssl configs to turn on to ensure that openssl uses the cesa unit. Check the config.seed file in the target directory of my builds for what has to be enabled.

Villeneuve wrote:

iirc openvpn uses what openssl provides. There are some openssl configs to turn on to ensure that openssl uses the cesa unit. Check the config.seed file in the target directory of my builds for what has to be enabled.

From OpenSSL Makefile

PKG_CONFIG_DEPENDS:= \
    CONFIG_OPENSSL_ENGINE_CRYPTO \
    CONFIG_OPENSSL_ENGINE_DIGEST \
    CONFIG_OPENSSL_WITH_EC \
    CONFIG_OPENSSL_WITH_EC2M \
    CONFIG_OPENSSL_WITH_SSL3 \
    CONFIG_OPENSSL_HARDWARE_SUPPORT

Then it leads to some other options.

However, I don't see any of those option during make menuconfig. What I did is to run "feeds install openssl". Any other package I have to include?

make menuconfig->Librairies->SSL->libopenssl

or / (search) OPENSSL

Edit: There is when it is selected, and if your comfort level is there you can just hack it from the other side (i.e. edit the .config directly, copy an existing configdiff over your .config and do a make defconfig...)

(Last edited by Villeneuve on 5 Mar 2017, 20:26)

Villeneuve wrote:

make menuconfig->Librairies->SSL->libopenssl

or / (search) OPENSSL

That's what I did but there is no sub menu or option after select libopenssl.

davidc502 wrote:

  As for OpenWrt, I haven't done a build since September of last year, and actually didn't realize that I don't have any packages available for that build on the site... Unless you knew the absolute path one couldn't find it. I'm thinking about just pulling it, but feel awkward about doing so since Openwrt is the "daddy".

it looks like the unification of LEDE and OpenWRT is pretty much a done deal. There seems to be complete agreement from both LEDE and OpenWRT developers that the LEDE tree is the way forward. All OpenWRT developers have commit access to the LEDE tree.

They are still discussing what the name of the resulting project should be (OpenWRT has history, that is good for public name recognition, but the management issues have left a bad taste in some people's mouth, most don't care much about the name.)

(Last edited by dlang on 5 Mar 2017, 23:04)

dlang wrote:
davidc502 wrote:

  As for OpenWrt, I haven't done a build since September of last year, and actually didn't realize that I don't have any packages available for that build on the site... Unless you knew the absolute path one couldn't find it. I'm thinking about just pulling it, but feel awkward about doing so since Openwrt is the "daddy".

it looks like the unification of LEDE and OpenWRT is pretty much a done deal. There seems to be complete agreement from both LEDE and OpenWRT developers that the LEDE tree is the way forward. All OpenWRT developers have commit access to the LEDE tree.

They are still discussing what the name of the resulting project should be (OpenWRT has history, that is good for public name recognition, but the management issues have left a bad taste in some people's mouth, most don't care much about the name.)

What do you think will happen moving forward? The Lede or OpenWrt name?

davidc502 wrote:

\

1. When either vpn client or server is set up, choose "cryptodev" as the Engine.
2. Last I checked the patches are already in the sources, and compile fine. Yes, it will be enabled.

However, even with cryptodev enabled, I don't get great speeds... perhaps your configuration will differ.

Right. After enable cryptodev and hardware acc, I don't see much difference in speed.

LogicoZone wrote:
Villeneuve wrote:

make menuconfig->Librairies->SSL->libopenssl

or / (search) OPENSSL

That's what I did but there is no sub menu or option after select libopenssl.

Hit "Enter" :-)

cybrnook2002 wrote:
LogicoZone wrote:
Villeneuve wrote:

make menuconfig->Librairies->SSL->libopenssl

or / (search) OPENSSL

That's what I did but there is no sub menu or option after select libopenssl.

Hit "Enter" :-)

Pardon my stupidity. smile

After I manual tweak the .config file and notice the option is not defined. Then i tried that.

davidc502 wrote:
dlang wrote:

They are still discussing what the name of the resulting project should be (OpenWRT has history, that is good for public name recognition, but the management issues have left a bad taste in some people's mouth, most don't care much about the name.)

What do you think will happen moving forward? The Lede or OpenWrt name?

Unknown, there are a lot of people who don't care, a few that really dislike OpenWRT (either bad history or they claim that it implies support for only one brand of routers, or that it implies only use on routers, not other embedded devices), and others that point out that OpenWRT has a wide brand recognition that would be lost if the name goes away. There is also recognition that LEDE has not caught on as a brand.

There was a proposal last night to make OpenWRT be a sub-brand of whatever over-arching product. Using the same codebase, OpenWRT builds would be the traditional, user-focused AP builds, while LEDE builds would be focused much more on the 'embedded server" type build (no LUCI, no dnsmasq, something more suited for building a NAS that sits on your internal network), with the potential for more 'brands' being created for different niches in the future.

Both OpenWRT and LEDE use the same wiki software, so merging them is just a matter of copying/cleanup.

The build infrastructure is probably going to consolodate under the LEDE configurations (adding the OpenWRT systems to what LEDE already has) and the LEDE build infrastructure was significantly improved rather than just a copy of what OpenWRT had in place.

The code will be what is currently the LEDE tree.

The management policies/processes are going to be the LEDE ones (there are a lot of people who list that as a non-negitable item and nobody arguing against that)

The forum software is an open question, there is different software in place for each one, and they are talking about setting up polls for the users to decide, none of the core team spend a lot of time with the forums (personally, I like that with the LEDE forum, I can subscribe to a topic and get all the posts, and reply to the posts via e-mail rather than the OpenWRT forum that just says 'there was a new post on topic X')

3200acm working great on 5GHz with kernel 4.9.13 + mwlwifi-current. Still no wifi light but im assuming thats because of the ongoing work on the dts(dtsi).

Dlang,

dlang wrote:

They are still discussing what the name of the resulting project should be (OpenWRT has history, that is good for public name recognition, but the management issues have left a bad taste in some people's mouth, most don't care much about the name.

John Crispin is the only one to publicly admit in the recent (lede internal) discussion that there are clear issues attached with the brand LEDE. It's not about OpenWrt or LEDE but open source in general. Such games make investments in open source a lot riskier and I can't blame people for shovelling their money to Microsoft or Apple. Again forks are fine and sometimes for the best, reboots and the required abuse of power and the amount of FUD to make it happen _never_.

You talk about management issues, if you haven't work out your position as a distribution to such a topic even after months you have no right to blame anyone. Add to that the ones making this claim are to a large degree responsible of how OpenWrt was managed.

Other fun fact, the one to first make handing over the domain a requirement for a merge now claims OpenWrt should be abandoned. Opportunism only hurts credibility. At least handing over the domain is from the table then, no further need. wink

dlang wrote:

The forum software is an open question, there is different software in place for each one, and they are talking about setting up polls for the users to decide, none of the core team spend a lot of time with the forums (personally, I like that with the LEDE forum, I can subscribe to a topic and get all the posts, and reply to the posts via e-mail rather than the OpenWRT forum that just says 'there was a new post on topic X')

Should that be read as the web interface of discourse is crap? Either way, I'm using fora precisely because I don't get any mail that may distract me from what I do. So moving to discourse is replacing a mostly clean interface with visual clutter. I doubt I'd have signed up in the first place.

As for bug tracker, flyspray is as bad a pick as is trac, so doesn't matter.

As for multiple brands and products, no thanks. If you want your specialised derivative do this outside of OpenWrt, it's dam easy as I have shown, even with hardly any knowledge about OpenWrt as I had half a year ago. Gargoyle is practising this for a long time already. No need to introduce tiers for derivatives, that just gives room for further political games.

I just hope that the engineers come out on top of the politicians in this debacle or the community might well be done for.

lifehacksback wrote:

3200acm working great on 5GHz with kernel 4.9.13 + mwlwifi-current. Still no wifi light but im assuming thats because of the ongoing work on the dts(dtsi).

Yeah, no issues on 4.11 and Rango. After a week and more than 3TB of data transferred I still didn't run into any degradation or interrupts. A single slow path warning related to ampsu is all. So yeah not prefect but perfectly usable. So while mwlwifi needs some love it's likely that compat-wireless for 4.4 simply is no good at all.

sera wrote:

Dlang,

dlang wrote:

They are still discussing what the name of the resulting project should be (OpenWRT has history, that is good for public name recognition, but the management issues have left a bad taste in some people's mouth, most don't care much about the name.

John Crispin is the only one to publicly admit in the recent (lede internal) discussion that there are clear issues attached with the brand LEDE. It's not about OpenWrt or LEDE but open source in general. Such games make investments in open source a lot riskier and I can't blame people for shovelling their money to Microsoft or Apple. Again forks are fine and sometimes for the best, reboots and the required abuse of power and the amount of FUD to make it happen _never_.

You talk about management issues, if you haven't work out your position as a distribution to such a topic even after months you have no right to blame anyone. Add to that the ones making this claim are to a large degree responsible of how OpenWrt was managed.

by management issues, I was referring to people posting that they didn't want to use the name OpenWRT because it brought back memories of bad times before the split. That wasn't referring to LEDE management processes. Everyone seems willing (or demanding) to live under the LEDE management processes.

I don't know who was who before everything blew up (I'm just someone useing the resulting tree and interested in the best software), so I can't comment on the management history issues

sera wrote:

Other fun fact, the one to first make handing over the domain a requirement for a merge now claims OpenWrt should be abandoned. Opportunism only hurts credibility. At least handing over the domain is from the table then, no further need. wink

well, if the projects are going to be merged, even if the new name is neither LEDE or OpenWRT, there will need to be redirects, and as such the domains for both of the old projects will need to be under the control of the new project.

sera wrote:
dlang wrote:

The forum software is an open question, there is different software in place for each one, and they are talking about setting up polls for the users to decide, none of the core team spend a lot of time with the forums (personally, I like that with the LEDE forum, I can subscribe to a topic and get all the posts, and reply to the posts via e-mail rather than the OpenWRT forum that just says 'there was a new post on topic X')

sera wrote:

Should that be read as the web interface of discourse is crap? Either way, I'm using fora precisely because I don't get any mail that may distract me from what I do. So moving to discourse is replacing a mostly clean interface with visual clutter. I doubt I'd have signed up in the first place.

no, it means that I am interested in too many things to g chasing a different website (and many different pages on each website) for each thing. It results in too much time clicking and waiting for pages to load to see what's happening.

By getting a feed of all new posts in my e-mail and the ability to respond to them as if they are mailing lists, I am able to participate if a far wider set of topics.

There is no web forum software that I will use unless I _really_ have to. The only reason I am here is inertia from when I was looking at trying to have a non-profit drop ~$60K to buy 120+ of these routers and I needed to see what the support was like before I made such a recommendation. I resigned that position several months ago and am still checking this on inertia.

sera wrote:

As for bug tracker, flyspray is as bad a pick as is trac, so doesn't matter.

I agree, I have no preference.

sera wrote:

As for multiple brands and products, no thanks. If you want your specialised derivative do this outside of OpenWrt, it's dam easy as I have shown, even with hardly any knowledge about OpenWrt as I had half a year ago. Gargoyle is practising this for a long time already. No need to introduce tiers for derivatives, that just gives room for further political games.

I just hope that the engineers come out on top of the politicians in this debacle or the community might well be done for.

This is all engineers, some still nursing hurt feelings over past experiences.

I have no stake in this discussion (I'm a user, not a developer for either one), and am trying to summarize the discussion. As in any summary, it's probable that I am distorting someone's views unintentionally, please refer to the original threads (Linux Foundation and State of the Union are the most recent ones)

Just starting building LEDE trunk and run into stability issue which make my router reboot every 5 ~ 10 mins as far as I can see.

When I tried to roll back to OpenWRT build, it won't let me do that and showing following message.

The uploaded image file does not contain a supported format. Make sure that you choose the generic image format for your platform.

Anyone know how I can roll back from GUI?

Secondly, does power light always flashing in LEDE build? I build LEDE for both WRT1900AC and R8000 and both seems always having power light flashing?

Edited:

NVM, I have to use sysupgrade -F to flash. Roll back to OpenWRT trunk and see how that goes.

(Last edited by LogicoZone on 9 Mar 2017, 09:04)

an 'enhancement' to LUCI (post CC release) does a format check before allowing file to be flashed, and the factory firmware fails that check.

There is talk about reverting this change.

but in the meantime, you have to copy the firmware image to a filesystem the router can access from the commandline (i.e. on the router, on a USB stick, on a network drive, or on a webserver reacable by the router) and then use the command line tool sysupgrade

https://wiki.openwrt.org/doc/techref/sysupgrade

Dlang,

A forum for me is more like a pub where you go to meet people instead of drinking beer. There isn't much of technical interest here for me, sure rare gems always exist but not worth mining. Getting to know who is who and helping out once in a while getting others started is about all.

Anyway, mail is more a thing of configuration than the platform. I'm sure both can be made to behave like the other in this regard. Didn't know either but a quick search brought up https://forum.openwrt.org/extern.php?ac … p;type=rss

dlang wrote:

This is all engineers, some still nursing hurt feelings over past experiences.

No one is just one or the other. And we are hardly any further on paper than we were in September, a general agreement to merge again is all. Time got wasted since, enough for even the Linux Foundation to actively reach out. Either merge or going separate ways is fine but this uncertainty hurts everyone. If split the least or hardly any damage would have been dealt if that was clear right from the start. If merged I'd clearly go with OpenWrt and treat LEDE as an experiment for some to figure out what they wanted in the first place.

The recent activity is good but all I see is Kaloz asking to bring about a decision soon and some more enthusiastic than others agreeing with him. The other aspect is (as no one can give a position statement for LEDE as a distribution) individuals outlining their expectations so there is at least a ground for discussions.

LogicoZone,

as dlan already stated not via gui. The power switch method to get to the alternate image might be the most straight forward one to go back, no need for access via command line.

sera wrote:

A forum for me is more like a pub where you go to meet people instead of drinking beer. There isn't much of technical interest here for me, sure rare gems always exist but not worth mining. Getting to know who is who and helping out once in a while getting others started is about all.

That can be the case, but this topic for example has been the only place to get the technical information, so it's more than a place to hang out.

I don't want to insist that others do things my way, I just would like to freedom to interact in a way that's more efficient for me. Some forum software makes this easy, some requires custom coding.

sera wrote:
dlang wrote:

This is all engineers, some still nursing hurt feelings over past experiences.

No one is just one or the other. And we are hardly any further on paper than we were in September, a general agreement to merge again is all.

it's a bit more than that. In December, the remaining OpenWRT devs have been given commit access to the LEDE tree, so for development purposes, the LEDE tree has been combined and the OpenWRT tree is going to see less and less attention.

LEDE also made it's first release, and now that the release has been done, they are looking to hammer out the remaining issues to combine the projects. Back in the September timeframe, there was still a lot of debate on the question of if unification was desirable, that's well settled now.

sera wrote:

Time got wasted since, enough for even the Linux Foundation to actively reach out. Either merge or going separate ways is fine but this uncertainty hurts everyone. If split the least or hardly any damage would have been dealt if that was clear right from the start. If merged I'd clearly go with OpenWrt and treat LEDE as an experiment for some to figure out what they wanted in the first place.

The recent activity is good but all I see is Kaloz asking to bring about a decision soon and some more enthusiastic than others agreeing with him. The other aspect is (as no one can give a position statement for LEDE as a distribution) individuals outlining their expectations so there is at least a ground for discussions.

shrug, I see the LEDE mission statement as "Linux for small/embedded" devices as being sufficient.

Sera,

What is the latest release of swrt?  I tried to download 01-26-17 and failed. Is there a newer version for download?

Thanks.

LogicoZone,

Was asked this just this morning for an updated series, which just passed the build and boot test now smile

---

I won't go into too much detail. Some major changes this time around which can be summed up as:
- drop linux-4.9, was at 25 patches and rising, running 4.10 for over a month already just fine.
- partial failsafe support and initramfs cleanup
- use an external regulatory.bin instead of patching it into the kernel
- swconfig support for Rango
- drop packages which were marked broken as there is no point in fixing them in the first place.
- more uapi related changes
- kernel patches cleanup round 1

swrt-2017-03-09
---------------

* linux-4.9: drop
* linux-4.10: bump to 4.10.1, make default
* linux-4.11: add 4.11-rc1
* linux-next: bump to next-20170227

* kmod-ubi: drop from series
* kmod-ubifs: drop from series
* mvebu: enable input subsystem
* initramfs-ubiblock: add package
* initramfs: use static ubiblock binary
* initramfs: implement failsafe

* wireless-regdb: add package
* crda: add package
* cfg80211: use crda
* kernel: drop regdb patch

* swconfig: core updates
* swconfig: add Rango support (though I'd still use DSA, no question)

* kmod-rotary-gpio-custom: drop package
* kmod-button-hotplug: drop package
* kmod-gpio-button-hotplug: drop package
* compat-wireless: drop package
* kmod-mwlwifi: drop package, depends on compat-wireless
* kmod-mt76: drop, depends on compat-wireless, can be converted to use in kernel wireless stack)
* hostap-driver: drop package (the last device I had which used this driver died over a decade ago)

* kernel: more uapi fixups
* musl: more uapi fixups
* netifd: drop musl fixup
* ppp: drop musl fixup
* xtables: drop musl fixup
* ebtables: proper musl fixup

* swrt/build_dist.bash: default to non verbose builds, use --verbose if you want
* swrt/build_dist.bash: use $MAKEOPTS variable instead of $JOBS

swrt-2017-03-09.tar.xz: https://gpldr.in/v/N0PS85lqci/hyIFjRBBiN4tyo4B
sha256sum: 3d6600a04e2d6848f16885e95534606397eb05f79a08f835556d23cce901f3d8

I have been told numerous times by one or two that I am an ass and I should go home and stop posting.

I haven't posted for months. I am; however loosing patience with the sillies on this thread.

This just got posted here:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/route … -1.4017033

The following IS A TIRADE.

1. It is ABSOLUTELY STUPID that ON ANY BOARD that there have been 2.3 million views  and 14,000 replies.

THIS TOPIC for the Linksys WRT1900AC now includes the 3200 (several generations later) should be CLOSED. Enough of this crap!!!!!!!!

2.  There are ALMOST NO versions of firmware that are identified as STABLE; LEDE or OPENWRT. Why does it ALWAYS have to be fiddled with.  POST A STABLE VERSION SOMEWHERE and leave it alone for 6 months!

SOMEWHERE in this SHIT is THIS.

IT is all well and good to chase tommorrow; BUT;;;;;; THERE HAS TO BE A SIGNED OFF STABLE RELEASE; GOOD for many weeks and months and LEDE and OPENWRT seem not to understand that STABILITY is KEY!!!!!!!!!!!

LEDE is having a fight with OPENWRT.  AS an owner of one of the first units with a fan; I don't care.

Linksys says this product AND all following products have open source firmware available.

EXACTLY WHERE; are signed off STABLE Versions.

It seems to me that despite the split (LEDE and OPENWRT); nothing has been resolved for the end user.  LEDE bitched about OPENWRT and stability and LEDE has yet to sign off and release a STABLE version that will run for weeks and months.

I am pissed with the asses at Belkin; but the OEM firmware; which I use; does NOT PISS off this household.

I am 71 years old; have 3 university students here; and using ANY firmware POSTED here is inviting a disaster.  ENOUGH OF THIS CRAP.

It seems that many including Kaloz are using this board to PAD THEIR POCKETS as Linksys employees.

ADD to this is that David Lin from Linksys; is using this board to supplement the deficiencies at Linksys to USE the experts on this board to fix ( for FREE ) the issues with the driver.

4. There are an impatient bunch here that are looking for a fast fix from David. IF Linksys changes the driver; ANY firmware IS NULL AND VOID and needs a new FCC approval; which will take months.

This board needs to get its collective head out of its ass and start lobbying the FCC to rescind a stupid rule; the problem will NOT go away.

The US is an ASS and has always been an ASS; and there is NO rationality in many instances for the rules that are put in place.

The US is a bully!! and then US wants to use its (bogus) world wide authority for whatever.

A drone is going to bring down a plane faster than an errant router running a higher power than authorized.

Rick

From Canada

(Last edited by RickStep on 10 Mar 2017, 01:07)

Rick, if you go to ANY opensource project and rant/insult people claiming that they should stop working, you are going to be ignored and told to shut up (and I'm doing so now, at least on this subject)

you have NO right to tell someone that they cannot spend their time on something.

If you think that people are presenting something as stable and it isn't, it is fair to point out the problems that you (or others) are having.

Please delete your self describe tirade, it does no good and eats up space.

Sorry, posts 14151 to 14150 are missing from our archive.