Please consider ath10k (non-ct) drivers instead of ct

That all sounds good in theory. Over the past 2 years I tried to help, I reported issues, I bisected firmware many times and we never got anywhere towards any actual fixes. I'm not alone, you can see past issues in the repo where others like me go through the same thing and eventually give up and move on.
This is very likely environment related, the type of clients being used (though the problems I experience are with common hardware not obscure no-name devices), but the reality is that I would rather use firmware with no changelog that works over firmware that comes with a changelog but does not work well.

4 Likes

probably they need help with actual development...maybe there is too many problems for Mr. Greear to handle himself...

I agree with you but only for the stable branches, for the end-user's sake

The real goal of Openwrt is to be completely open-source and give 100% control of the hardware to the user, not to increase performance. Often there is performance improvement, due to replacing outdated software with the latest, but other than that, we can only hope for and work towards good performance as an added bonus whenever the open-source code is not performing well.

Absolutely. This doesn't sound like a job for a single person who requires lots of hardware to test on. And Mr. Greear also has a business to run, so ...

IMO the change from non-CT to CT drivers was too early.

4 Likes

This topic was automatically closed 10 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.