Mathias,
I have just come across a weird side effect of the following change.
With the patch applied it is no longer possible to communicate via the
red Ethernet between 2 BT Home Hub 5, but communications are fine
between a HH5 and any other device (??).
diff --git a/target/linux/lantiq/dts/BTHOMEHUBV5A.dts
b/target/linux/lantiq/dts/BTHOMEHUBV5A.dts
index 7f19e52..59b6cee 100644
--- a/target/linux/lantiq/dts/BTHOMEHUBV5A.dts
+++ b/target/linux/lantiq/dts/BTHOMEHUBV5A.dts
@@ -244,15 +244,6 @@
phy-mode = "gmii";
phy-handle = <&phy13>;
};
- };
-
- wan: interface@1 {
- compatible = "lantiq,xrx200-pdi";
- #address-cells = <1>;
- #size-cells = <0>;
- reg = <1>;
- lantiq,wan;
-
ethernet@5 {
compatible = "lantiq,xrx200-pdi-port";
reg = <5>;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the above patch applied (and changing board.json to include port 5)
the red Ethernet appears as eth0.2
SCENARIO with above patch applied:
red Ethernet appears as eth0.2 and assigned an IP
2 x bt (BTHomeHub5) routers (a and b) plus other devices (od)
bt(a), bt(b) and od have eth0.2 on the same subnet
ping bt(a) --> bt(b) no response (tcpdump shows arp request from bt(a)
mac address and no arp response from bt(b)
ping bt(b) --> bt(a) as above
ping bt(a or b) --> od OK
ping od --> bt(a or b) OK
SCENARIO without above patch applied
red Ethernet as eth1.2 and bridged (it does not work if I do not create
a bridge and assign eth1.2 to the bridge, but we knew this)
ping bt(a) --> bt(b) OK
ping bt(b) --> bt(a) OK
ping bt(a or b) --> od OK
ping od --> bt(a or b) OK
Mauro
On 13/02/17 07:27, Mathias Kresin wrote:
12.02.2017 17:40, Mauro Mozzarelli:
You are correct that the name does not matter, however if we have
routers already configured to associate the xDSL or Ethernet to WAN,
when we flash the new firmware we will have to reconfigure them to
rename the device. This is all good if the routers are physically there,
but when the routers are in remote unmanaged locations (like I have) it
becomes a problem. Renaming the interface is a small thing, but it will
impact many end users. I advocate to maintain WAN for xDSL out of my use
case interest and also because personally I think an xDSL is truly a WAN
interface whilst an Ethernet can be anything.
Please keep in mind that your existing config is not touched and the
wan network still exists with my patches applied. I fail to see how it
should break existing xDSL configs.
But you are right, the ethernet wan config will most likely not work
any longer for people who managed to workaround all the outlined
issues. But the same applies to your patch, since you are moving the
ethernet wan from eth1 to eth0 as well. Lets hope that only the
minority of the uses managed to configure a working ethernet wan.
Mathias
_______________________________________________
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
--
Mauro Mozzarelli
eMail: ma...@ezplanet.net
Phone: +44 7941 727378
_______________________________________________
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
