[LEDE-DEV] rb112/rb133 (adm5120) compile fail

[Denis Periša]

Thank you all for insights and help.
I have RB133 and RB112 devices that are adm5120.
I also have RB600A which is mpc83xx which seems to have similar fate
and that is even more of a problem as devices are still good.

Any more help is greatly appreciated.

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 9:20 PM, Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h at gmx.de> wrote:
> Denis Periša schrieb am 27.02.2017 um 16:36:
>> Yes, indeed, old kernel.
>> I suck at coding so I'm of no use there.
>
> I also have got an adm5120 device around and thought for some time
> already to tinker with it, again. So, seems like now would be a good
> time to do that.
>
>> I do have one or two 16mb ram devices, but these 'newer' are all 32MB
>> .. plus some swap.. good to go. I don't use luci or any daemons so..
>> bridge tools and kernel modules for it and ath5k is pretty much all I
>> use. It's like supplementary node to main node mostly. Cheap devices,
>> good use.
>>
>> Is there any quick tips to try newer kernel? maybe patches still apply?
>> Device works, compiles as rb1xx and runs fully. But I have some
>> problems with ath*k as it requies some old compatibility crypto that
>> google cannot find.
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 7:51 AM, Stefan Lippers-Hollmann <s.l-h at gmx.de> wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> On 2017-02-27, Denis Periša wrote:
>>>> Ah, now I saw if I enable "BROKEN" that it will show as rb1xx, not
>>>> generic.. And does compile altho I cannot get ath5k running for some
>>>> crypto reason..
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Be aware that adm5120 has never been ported to kernel 4.4, nor 4.9 and
>>> is stuck on kernel 3.18, which is now EOL. This dependency on a no
>>> longer supported kernel version and the fact that the platform as a
>>> whole hasn't seen sufficient (or probably any-) development to bump
>>> the kernel version to 4.4 (or now 4.9) is one of the major reasons why
>>> it is marked BROKEN (another is because most of its devices only have
>>> 16 MB RAM, which means you need a very specific/ targetted config to keep
>>> it running at all). Chances are very high that the whole platform code
>>> will be removed from LEDE shortly, unless it gets the development
>>> needed to update it to kernel 4.9.x[1]. If you're interested in keeping
>>> adm5120 support available, the situation is probably very urgent to
>>> get it ported (and stable) to kernel 4.9+.
>>>
>>> Disclaimer: I can't speak for the LEDE development team and this response
>>> is only my personal interpretation of adm5120's current state and most
>>> likely fate.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>         Stefan Lippers-Hollmann
>>>
>>> [1]     see http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/lede-dev/2017-February/006321.html
>>>         for reference about a platform (au1000) in a similar situation.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lede-dev mailing list
>> Lede-dev at lists.infradead.org
>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
>>
>