On 17.02.2017 02:57, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> This seems to be a bug in the device tree for the TS419 - it doesn't
> quite match the board code it replaced. Should be easy to fix.
After applying patch, eth1 is recognized, but it behaves strange. It
looks like it is using a correct MAC during DHCP phase, but after
getting IP from DHCP it clones(?) eth0 MAC.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is an output from flashing:
kirkwood-qnap: machine: QNAP TS419 family
Using DTB: kirkwood-ts419-6282.dtb
Installing /usr/lib/linux-image-4.9.0-1-marvell/kirkwood-ts419-6282.dtb
into /boot/dtbs/4.9.0-1-marvell/kirkwood-ts419-6282.dtb
Taking backup of kirkwood-ts419-6282.dtb.
Installing new kirkwood-ts419-6282.dtb.
Installing /usr/lib/linux-image-4.9.0-1-marvell/kirkwood-ts419-6282.dtb
into /boot/dtbs/4.9.0-1-marvell/kirkwood-ts419-6282.dtb
Taking backup of kirkwood-ts419-6282.dtb.
Installing new kirkwood-ts419-6282.dtb.
flash-kernel: installing version 4.9.0-1-marvell
flash-kernel: appending
/usr/lib/linux-image-4.9.0-1-marvell/kirkwood-ts419-6282.dtb to kernel
Generating kernel u-boot image... done.
Flashing kernel (using 2056012/2097152 bytes)... done.
Flashing initramfs (using 4777366/9437184 bytes)... done.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is an relevant output from dmesg:
[ 0.045321] [Firmware Info]:
/ocp@f1000000/ethernet-controller@72000/ethernet0-port@0:
local-mac-address is not set
[ 0.045412] [Firmware Info]:
/ocp@f1000000/ethernet-controller@76000/ethernet1-port@0:
local-mac-address is not set
[ 60.981436] mv643xx_eth: MV-643xx 10/100/1000 ethernet driver version 1.4
[ 61.917900] mv643xx_eth_port mv643xx_eth_port.0 eth0: port 0 with MAC
address 00:08:9b:cb:ae:be
[ 62.441157] mv643xx_eth_port mv643xx_eth_port.1 eth1: port 0 with MAC
address 00:08:9b:cb:ae:bf
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Configuration /etc/network/interfaces:
# This file describes the network interfaces available on your system
# and how to activate them. For more information, see interfaces(5).
source /etc/network/interfaces.d/*
# The loopback network interface
auto lo
iface lo inet loopback
# The primary network interface
allow-hotplug eth0
iface eth0 inet dhcp
# The secondary network interface
allow-hotplug eth1
iface eth1 inet dhcp
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ifconfig output, note that MAC and IP addresses are correct:
eth0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
inet 192.168.1.100 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.1.255
inet6 fe80::208:9bff:fecb:aebe prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x20<link>
ether 00:08:9b:cb:ae:be txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet)
RX packets 1693441 bytes 2370511659 (2.2 GiB)
RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0
TX packets 386537 bytes 63194040 (60.2 MiB)
TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0
device interrupt 41
eth1: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
inet 192.168.1.101 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.1.255
inet6 fe80::208:9bff:fecb:aebf prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x20<link>
ether 00:08:9b:cb:ae:bf txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet)
RX packets 412 bytes 58481 (57.1 KiB)
RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0
TX packets 48 bytes 4776 (4.6 KiB)
TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0
device interrupt 42
lo: flags=73<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING> mtu 65536
inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 255.0.0.0
inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128 scopeid 0x10<host>
loop txqueuelen 1 (Local Loopback)
RX packets 376 bytes 24942 (24.3 KiB)
RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0
TX packets 376 bytes 24942 (24.3 KiB)
TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
And here is an output from arp on router:
IP address HW type Flags HW address Mask
Device
192.168.1.101 0x1 0x2 00:08:9b:cb:ae:be *
br-lan
192.168.1.100 0x1 0x2 00:08:9b:cb:ae:be *
br-lan
both IP addresses have same MAC (from eth0).
I'm not sure what is going here...
BTW. Is this .dtsi file responsible for GPIO configuration? I've also
noticed a strange behavior with qcontrol:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=795558
Best Regards,
Marek
