Experimental build of Gargoyle 1.13.0.x for ipq40xx architecture routers

Want to share your OpenWrt / Gargoyle knowledge? Implemented a new feature? Let us know here.

Moderator: Moderators

pythonic
Posts: 159
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 5:47 am
Location: Australia

Experimental build of Gargoyle 1.13.0.x for ipq40xx architecture routers

Post by pythonic »

Download archive: download from Github (build #3)

The archives contain the images and packages generated from an experimental ipq40xx target configuration for Gargoyle 1.13.0.x.

The source was from Gargoyle's git repository master branch at commit cf669bf0. In order to pick up recent OpenWrt security fixes etc, I updated build.sh to use OpenWrt 19.07 commit 81d0b4a9.

Supported devices:
  • 8devices Jalapeno (*)
  • Asus RT-AC58U A1 (*)
  • Fritz!Box 4040 (*)
  • Fritz!Box 7530 (*)
  • Linksys EA6350v3
  • Linksys EA8300
  • GL.iNet GL-B1300 (*)
  • Netgear EX6100v2
  • Netgear EC6150v2
  • Zyxel NBG6617
(*) not flashable from factory user interface - see Installation section below.

At time of writing the only images I have tested are:
  • GL.iNet GL-B1300 sysupgrade (upgraded from previous 1.13.0.x build)
  • EA6350v3 factory (build #1 installed via the OEM firmware upgrade function)
My testing has not been particularly comprehensive as my requirements are modest.


Known or suspected issues
  • the Asus RT-AC58U only has 128MB of RAM; OpenWrt 19.07 builds images for this device with a version of the WiFi drivers which use small buffers (compared to the standard drivers) which appears to have mostly resolved the RAM starvation problems encountered with OpenWrt 18.06, however users should be alert for signs of RAM starvation (e.g. random reboots) while running this experimental Gargoyle build on these devices.

Installation

Of the supported devices only the Linksys, Netgear and Zyxel devices are believed capable of directly installing Gargoyle from the factory web interface by flashing a Gargoyle factory image. Installing OpenWrt first should still be considered before installing Gargoyle via OpenWrt's firmware update function with the Gargoyle "sysupgrade" image - in the event of initial installation issues you're more likely to be able to get assistance from the much larger OpenWrt community.

NB: While a factory image is built for the 8devices Jalapeno and included, I haven't found any description of how to use it to initially install OpenWrt (or Gargoyle) - so I recommend installing OpenWrt using it's documented installation procedure before installing the Gargoyle "sysupgrade" image.

The other supported devices have specific installation procedures which are documented in the respective OpenWrt device hardware page. For these devices install OpenWrt according to those instructions and then install the respective Gargoyle "sysupgrade" image via OpenWrt's firmware upgrade function.

Once Gargoyle (or OpenWrt) have been successfully installed, subsequent version upgrades normally only require installing the respective "sysupgrade" image.

As there is no current package repository available for the ipq40xx target, desired optional packages will have to be installed by copying to the target router (e.g. by scp or WinSCP) and manually installing with the gpkg command from an SSH session.

If in doubt, don't attempt to install one of these images.


Changelog

Build #3 (20211231):
- updated to Gargoyle commit cf669bf0
- OpenWrt 19.07 base pushed forward to commit 81d0b4a9
- hosted on Github; source branch "ipq40xx-target"

Build #2 (20210817):
- updated to Gargoyle commit 6326b831
- modified build.sh to use OpenWrt 19.07.8 as base

Build #1 (20210125):
- initial build


Support...

There are always risks associated with flashing firmware, especially third party firmware, so please carefully consider your circumstances before attempting to install one of these images and be prepared for the possibility of failure and the potential for your router to become unusable (aka "bricked"). Neither I or the Gargoyle team can accept any responsibility for such outcomes.

Unfortunately I cannot practically support this experimental release - despite having been able to assemble a configuration and build several apparently usable firmware images, I lack a lot of knowledge about router hardware and have limited experience with Gargoyle itself and little knowledge of the details of its operation.

For questions specific to this experimental build, please post a followup to this thread - you may get lucky with someone able to provide assistance.

If you have questions about Gargoyle's interface or general functionality, queries should be addressed to an appropriate section of this forum.

Please also report successful installations of these images to this thread so that Gargoyle's maintainers can evaluate whether there's enough interest in the ipq40xx target to use this experimental build as a basis for adding full support for at least some ipq40xx devices to future Gargoyle releases.


Good luck!
pythonic
Last edited by pythonic on Fri Mar 04, 2022 8:46 am, edited 6 times in total.

the4anoni
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2021 2:10 pm

Re: Experimental build of Gargoyle 1.13.0.x for ipq40xx architecture routers

Post by the4anoni »

Hi @pythonic

Does VLAN on WAN works on this Firmware? I have GL.iNet GL-B1300, and I need VLAN on WAN to establish PPPoE session to have internet.

pythonic
Posts: 159
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 5:47 am
Location: Australia

Re: Experimental build of Gargoyle 1.13.0.x for ipq40xx architecture routers

Post by pythonic »

Gargoyle doesn't seem to support VLAN on WAN regardless of hardware, at least as far as I can see in the web interface.

According to this OpenWrt thread the B1300 standard WAN interface is configured such that it can't be tagged the way you want, however it is possible to repurpose one of the LAN ports as the WAN and tag on that port instead. To implement this you would have to manually edit the Gargoyle configuration files based on the info in that thread.

EDIT (20210809): another approach for resolving the VLAN on WAN requirement is a small smart switch (e.g. 5 port units from Netgear & TPLink) to provide a VLAN tagged upstream to untagged downstream (i.e. Gargoyle WAN) connection. Such an approach also means an extra LAN connection can be made available (useful with the B1300 which only has 2 LAN ports...).

pythonic
Posts: 159
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 5:47 am
Location: Australia

Re: Experimental build of Gargoyle 1.13.0.x for ipq40xx architecture routers

Post by pythonic »

Updated build archive available - see first post for details.

Lantis
Moderator
Posts: 6403
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2015 5:33 am
Location: Australia

Re: Experimental build of Gargoyle 1.13.0.x for ipq40xx architecture routers

Post by Lantis »

Do you feel this platform is stable enough and worth including in Gargoyle?
http://lantisproject.com/downloads/gargoyle_ispyisail.php for the latest releases
Please be respectful when posting. I do this in my free time on a volunteer basis.

pythonic
Posts: 159
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 5:47 am
Location: Australia

Re: Experimental build of Gargoyle 1.13.0.x for ipq40xx architecture routers

Post by pythonic »

It has been very stable for me - the previous build had uptimes over 60 days on the B1300 in daily use as my primary gateway. Over the last few days running this new build (despite the package date), I've needed the Wifi to use my work laptop from home and that has worked just fine on 5GHz. A couple of Android phones work just fine on 2.4GHz too.

However I can't say I've stressed it as I only have a 48/9 VDSL connection... and the work VPN client runs on the laptop.

The only device in the list of images I've built I'm sceptical about is the Asus RT-AC58U - with only 128MB of RAM, even with the CT small buffers radio drivers, I suspect it would be marginal for Gargoyle except in undemanding use. I included it to see if anyone would test it but I've not had any feedback.

The B1300 is still readily available new - having an official build for a readily available device that isn't that hard to install Gargoyle on would seem to me to be attractive but it is something else to maintain. As I'm actively using the B1300 I expect to continue building for my own use whether or not it becomes officially supported.

pythonic
Posts: 159
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 5:47 am
Location: Australia

Re: Experimental build of Gargoyle 1.13.0.x for ipq40xx architecture routers

Post by pythonic »

Updated build available - see first post for details.

denisr
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2022 10:40 am

Re: Experimental build of Gargoyle 1.13.0.x for ipq40xx architecture routers

Post by denisr »

Validating there is no update available.¡¡?

pythonic
Posts: 159
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 5:47 am
Location: Australia

Re: Experimental build of Gargoyle 1.13.0.x for ipq40xx architecture routers

Post by pythonic »

If you mean have I updated this build since the linked image set, the answer is no. The linked image set is actually only a handful of commits before the official 1.13 tag (none of them security related) and the OpenWrt 19.07 base is also very close to that used in 1.13.

I expect to update the build to the latest git commit (for OpenWrt 19.07) at whatever time I can get to it, and that build will be a normal upgrade from this one. My GL-B1300 is still in active use...

As it seems there might be a few other users of this build (there have been over a dozen downloads of the current image set) I will look at pull request to have ipq40xx added as an official Gargoyle architecture with the next update.

BTW: I've just fixed the commit reference for build #2 in the first post which somehow got copied from the build #3 info :(

denisr
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2022 10:40 am

Re: Experimental build of Gargoyle 1.13.0.x for ipq40xx architecture routers

Post by denisr »

Thank you very much, I currently have the latest version of gargoyle in a Linksys Wrtac1900ac as the main gateway in my home and excellent, I have a Linksys Ea6350 router which installs the version of gargoyle that you describe and it seemed very stable, the only drawback is that the wifi signal both in 2.4 Mhz and 5Mhz the signal is not very strong and stable as the factory firmware.

Post Reply