Hi, Peter,
Thanks for you explanation. I have learned some insights on how the PHY/MAC
works and MII.
FYI, the patch works. I have tested with following /etc/config/network to
send out the tagged packet:
config 'switch'
option 'name' 'eth1'
option 'reset' '1'
option 'enab
Hi,
I hopefully have finished the two versions of the driver. One effectively only
supports the M model (though it detects and initialises the FC model), and the
second experimental one adds VLAN support for the FC model.
I don't have the time right now to do the official patch submission. But
at
On 12/04/11 09:15, Yeoh Chun Yeow wrote:
> Unfortunately, the driver that you provided not able to detect the
> switch correctly "ADM6996FC PHY detected".
>
> I have observed the following:
> eth0: PHY overlaps ADM6996, providing fixed PHY 14.
> eth1: PHY overlaps ADM6996, providing fixed PHY 10.
Unfortunately, the driver that you provided not able to detect the switch
correctly "ADM6996FC PHY detected".
I have observed the following:
eth0: Atheros AG71xx at 0xb900, irq 4*
eth0: PHY overlaps ADM6996, providing fixed PHY 14.*
eth0: connected to PHY at ag71xx-mdio:14 [uid=1027, driv
On Monday 11 April 2011, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> On 11/04/11 11:08, Yeoh Chun Yeow wrote:
> > However, even the board is up without Ethernet cable connecting to the
> > LAN port 1 or port 0, the message "eth1: link up (100Mbps/Full duplex)
> > is already printed there.
>
> Yeah, it's still not comp
On 11/04/11 11:08, Yeoh Chun Yeow wrote:
> However, even the board is up without Ethernet cable connecting to the LAN
> port 1 or port 0, the message "eth1: link up (100Mbps/Full duplex) is
> already printed there.
Yeah, it's still not completely clear to me how these ports are all connected.
If
Dear Jonas,
After patching the patch, the messages ""Trying 100/FULL, Trying 10/HALF,
Trying 10/HALF" disappear during startup. However, even the board is up
without Ethernet cable connecting to the LAN port 1 or port 0, the message
"eth1: link up (100Mbps/Full duplex) is already printed there.
T
On 08/04/11 03:20, Yeoh Chun Yeow wrote:
> You have any clue which datasheet for FC chip should be referred to. For
> me, it seems that it is not similar to F chip or not totally same with M
> chip.
I'd love to have a datasheet for the FC chip, but I can't find it.
It would appear the M is an en
Yes, I am using the backfire version and will report my finding once I do
it.
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Jonas Gorski <
jonas.gorski+open...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6 April 2011 16:18, Yeoh Chun Yeow wrote:
> > Hi, Jonas,
> > UBNT RS has two ports connected to eth1, port 0 and port 1. If yo
On 6 April 2011 16:18, Yeoh Chun Yeow wrote:
> Hi, Jonas,
> UBNT RS has two ports connected to eth1, port 0 and port 1. If you connect
> your Ethernet cable to port 0 without first connecting Ethernet cable to
> port 1, it won't work. You will see a lot of messages "Trying 100/FULL,
> Trying 10/HA
Hi, Peter
You have any clue which datasheet for FC chip should be referred to. For me,
it seems that it is not similar to F chip or not totally same with M chip.
Regards,
Chun Yeow
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Peter Lebbing wrote:
>
>
> It works as I described on the M chip. It was suggested
>> Watch out for the primary VLAN ID; "pvid" property of the port. "swconfig
>> dev eth1 show" is your friend. The PVID might not always be what you
>> expect. Seeing where untagged packets go is something that needs to be
>> tested for the FC chip. The M chip is configured such that untagged pa
>
> But it is a curious setup. Did you do it just to test the functionality?
>
Yes, mainly for testing purpose.
>
> Good to hear a more usual setup does work. I assume this is with the patch
> you
> sent earlier?
Yes, using the patch I posted before.
> In that case the common case where a por
>
> So the two ports 0 and 1 are attached to the switch chip ports with those
> numbers?
>
> UBNT RS has three port. From the Left is LAN port 1, LAN port 0 and WAN
port.
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt
On Thursday 07 April 2011, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> On 06/04/11 16:18, Yeoh Chun Yeow wrote:
> > UBNT RS has two ports connected to eth1, port 0 and port 1. If you
> > connect your Ethernet cable to port 0 without first connecting Ethernet
> > cable to port 1, it won't work. You will see a lot of mes
On 05/04/11 08:52, Yeoh Chun Yeow wrote:
> Untagged packet receive by port 1 is drop. But VLAN 1 and VLAN 2 tagged
> packet for port 0 is working perfertly.
>
> config 'switch_vlan'
> option 'device' 'eth1'
> option 'vlan' '1'
> option 'vid' '1'
> option 'ports' '0t
On 06/04/11 16:18, Yeoh Chun Yeow wrote:
> UBNT RS has two ports connected to eth1, port 0 and port 1. If you
> connect your Ethernet cable to port 0 without first connecting Ethernet
> cable to port 1, it won't work. You will see a lot of messages "Trying
> 100/FULL, Trying 10/HALF, Trying 10/HALF
Hi, Jonas,
UBNT RS has two ports connected to eth1, port 0 and port 1. If you connect
your Ethernet cable to port 0 without first connecting Ethernet cable to
port 1, it won't work. You will see a lot of messages "Trying 100/FULL,
Trying 10/HALF, Trying 10/HALF". Once you connect port 1 with Ether
On 5 April 2011 08:52, Yeoh Chun Yeow wrote:
> Any reason why the first configuration failed?
> config 'switch_vlan'
> option 'ports' '0t 1 5t'
>
> config 'switch_vlan'
> option 'ports' '0t 1 5t'
Generally you can't have a port untagged for more than one VLAN, for
all others it h
Untagged packet receive by port 1 is drop. But VLAN 1 and VLAN 2 tagged
packet for port 0 is working perfertly.
config 'switch_vlan'
option 'device' 'eth1'
option 'vlan' '1'
option 'vid' '1'
option 'ports' '0t 1 5t'
config 'switch_vlan'
option 'device' 'eth
>
>
> Interesting find, thanks! Can the port still send *untagged* packets as
> well, if
> you configure untagged membership? When I wrote the driver, I think I
> explicitly
> chose not to set this bit, and it was unneeded for my M chip. Perhaps it
> means
> "ALWAYS send tagged packets", but I woul
On 04/04/11 12:59, Yeoh Chun Yeow wrote:
> Hi, Peter and David,
>
> I add the following patch and VLAN tagging working fine for UBNT RS:
>
Interesting find, thanks! Can the port still send *untagged* packets as well, if
you configure untagged membership? When I wrote the driver, I think I explicit
Hi, Peter and David,
I add the following patch and VLAN tagging working fine for UBNT RS:
--- ./target/linux/generic-2.6/files/drivers/net/phy/adm6996.c 2011-03-29
16:24:22.869595814 +0800
+++ ./build_dir/linux-ar71xx/linux-2.6.32.27/drivers/net/phy/adm6996.c
2011-04-04 18:32:14.188937710 +0800
David,
Can you send me the datasheet. Thanks
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 5:34 PM, David Goodenough <
david.goodeno...@linkchoose.co.uk> wrote:
> On Friday 01 April 2011, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> > On 01/04/11 03:27, Yeoh Chun Yeow wrote:
> > > Ok I found the script.
> > >
> > > read-all-adm output atta
Hi Peter,
i just dug out a board with the I version and wanted to also run the
test script on this type.
could oyu resent the all in one patch to the list so patchwork grabs the
full version, currently only the fix is listed in patchwork
http://patchwork.midlink.org/patch/576/
thx,
John
On 01/
On 01/04/11 11:52, Yeoh Chun Yeow wrote:
> Don't think that VLAN tagging is working.
>
> TCP dump results are shown below:
>
> # tcpdump -eni eth2
> tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode
> listening on eth2, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 96 bytes
>
Don't think that VLAN tagging is working.
TCP dump results are shown below:
# tcpdump -eni eth2
tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode
listening on eth2, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 96 bytes
19:00:21.462159 00:15:6d:c3:81:b1 > ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff, e
On Friday 01 April 2011, Yeoh Chun Yeow wrote:
> Just to confirm adm6996fc is similar to adm6996m or adm6996f.
I always thought the F and FC were more similar the the M, but
I have no evidence for that.
David
>
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 5:34 PM, David Goodenough <
>
> david.goodeno...@linkchoose.
Just to confirm adm6996fc is similar to adm6996m or adm6996f.
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 5:34 PM, David Goodenough <
david.goodeno...@linkchoose.co.uk> wrote:
> On Friday 01 April 2011, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> > On 01/04/11 03:27, Yeoh Chun Yeow wrote:
> > > Ok I found the script.
> > >
> > > read-all
On Friday 01 April 2011, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> On 01/04/11 03:27, Yeoh Chun Yeow wrote:
> > Ok I found the script.
> >
> > read-all-adm output attach.
>
> Thanks very much. It's not vital, but if you still have the setup ready,
> could you remove the VLAN related config from your /etc/config/net
Attach is the regs.
config interface loopback
option ifname lo
option protostatic
option ipaddr 127.0.0.1
option netmask 255.0.0.0
config interface lan
option ifname eth1
option type bridge
option protostatic
optio
On -10/01/37 20:59, Yeoh Chun Yeow wrote:
> It seems that ADM6996FC is different from ADM6996M. How to ensure the
> port get tagged? Is this by simply modifying Configuration register Bit 4?
It's a lot more involved on the M model. A whole bunch of bits need to be
changed before it works as one wo
On 01/04/11 03:27, Yeoh Chun Yeow wrote:
> Ok I found the script.
>
> read-all-adm output attach.
Thanks very much. It's not vital, but if you still have the setup ready, could
you remove the VLAN related config from your /etc/config/network and run the
script again? It would be helpful if the dr
Ok I found the script.
read-all-adm output attach.
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Yeoh Chun Yeow wrote:
> Please send me the script that you mentioned
>
> I have run the following:
>
> :~# swconfig dev eth1 vlan 2 set ports '0 1 2 3t 4t 5t'
> :~# swconfig dev eth1 get addr
> 0
> :~# swconfig de
Please send me the script that you mentioned
I have run the following:
:~# swconfig dev eth1 vlan 2 set ports '0 1 2 3t 4t 5t'
:~# swconfig dev eth1 get addr
0
:~# swconfig dev eth1 get data
65535
dmesg
Infineon ADM6996 ag71xx-mdio:10: set_pvid port 0 vlan 2
Infineon ADM6996 ag71xx-mdio:10: set_
On -10/01/37 20:59, John Crispin wrote:
> can you post a link to the patch ?
Also using pointers about patchwork use recently posted here, I unearthed my
patch:
http://patchwork.midlink.org/patch/574/
Apparently patchwork thought that my one-line fix superseded a 666-line patch
file :). That wo
On 31/03/11 17:08, Yeoh Chun Yeow wrote:
> Yes, I will do that. By the way, what should I check with debug info?
Nothing needs to be checked. But the read-all-adm script uses a facility in the
driver that is only compiled in when DEBUG is enabled.
It reads the contents of all addressable register
Yes, I will do that. By the way, what should I check with debug info?
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 8:53 PM, David Goodenough <
david.goodeno...@linkchoose.co.uk> wrote:
> Well the first problem is to detect that this is an FC not an M. This code
> was written on the assumption (as I understand it) th
Well the first problem is to detect that this is an FC not an M. This code
was written on the assumption (as I understand it) that it would only work
on the M, but I had a suspicion that it would also work on the FC but I
could not get a kernel built to test it (my bad). We obviously can not
si
It seems that ADM6996FC is different from ADM6996M. How to ensure the port
get tagged? Is this by simply modifying Configuration register Bit 4?
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Yeoh Chun Yeow wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Yeoh Chun Yeow
> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I am able t
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Yeoh Chun Yeow wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I am able to get the patch works by adding the following in mach-ubnt.c:
>
> ar71xx_eth1_data.phy_mask = UBNT_RS_LAN_PHYMASK
>
> However, there is two issues here:
> 1. RouterStation has two ports on ETH1. One port can only be
Dear all,
I am able to get the patch works by adding the following in mach-ubnt.c:
ar71xx_eth1_data.phy_mask = UBNT_RS_LAN_PHYMASK
However, there is two issues here:
1. RouterStation has two ports on ETH1. One port can only be activated after
the other port is connected with cable. If this port
On Wednesday 30 March 2011 10:41:10 John Crispin wrote:
> can you post a link to the patch ?
Thread starts here:
https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2011-January/009100.html
--
Florian
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.ope
https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2011-January/009100.html
this is assume
On 30/03/11 10:55, John Crispin wrote:
> yes and the archive can be linked to :)
>
> On 30/03/11 10:51, David Goodenough wrote:
>> Its not on a web site, just in the archive of this mail-list.
>>
>> David
>
yes and the archive can be linked to :)
On 30/03/11 10:51, David Goodenough wrote:
> Its not on a web site, just in the archive of this mail-list.
>
> David
>
> On Wednesday 30 March 2011, John Crispin wrote:
>> can you post a link to the patch ?
>>
>> On 30/03/11 10:34, David Goodenough wrote:
Its not on a web site, just in the archive of this mail-list.
David
On Wednesday 30 March 2011, John Crispin wrote:
> can you post a link to the patch ?
>
> On 30/03/11 10:34, David Goodenough wrote:
> > On Wednesday 30 March 2011, Yeoh Chun Yeow wrote:
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> Any one has trie
can you post a link to the patch ?
On 30/03/11 10:34, David Goodenough wrote:
> On Wednesday 30 March 2011, Yeoh Chun Yeow wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Any one has tried the patch from Peter Lebbing on VLAN tag on UBNT
>> RouterStation platform and get it work properly.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Chun Yeow
>
On Wednesday 30 March 2011, Yeoh Chun Yeow wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Any one has tried the patch from Peter Lebbing on VLAN tag on UBNT
> RouterStation platform and get it work properly.
>
> Regards,
> Chun Yeow
I am afraid that I have difficulty building the kernel to try it on
an ADM6996FC (on th
Dear all,
Any one has tried the patch from Peter Lebbing on VLAN tag on UBNT
RouterStation platform and get it work properly.
Regards,
Chun Yeow
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/op
49 matches
Mail list logo
