Re: [pfSense-discussion] Intel 82559ER switch
Are details on the Broadcom switch controllers openly available? I did not find anything on their web site. Nor did I, but the header file indicates it came from Broadcom: https://svn.openwrt.org/openwrt/tags/kamikaze_7.06/package/switch/src/etc53xx.h Relevant comment: /* * Broadcom Home Gateway Reference Design * BCM53xx Register definitions * * Copyright 2004, Broadcom Corporation * All Rights Reserved. * * THIS SOFTWARE IS OFFERED AS IS, AND BROADCOM GRANTS NO WARRANTIES OF ANY * KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, BY STATUTE, COMMUNICATION OR OTHERWISE. BROADCOM * SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS * FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE OR NONINFRINGEMENT CONCERNING THIS SOFTWARE. * $Id: etc53xx.h,v 1.1 2005/05/14 13:15:46 nbd Exp $ */
Re: [pfSense-discussion] Intel 82559ER switch
FWIW, OpenWRT has some utils built-in to deal with these chipsets, I just don't have it working yet - robocfg. They've deprecated it in favor of a kernel driver, but all it does is uses a header file from Broadcom and twiddles some ioctls on the associated ethernet port according to the magic values therein. RB
Re: [pfSense-discussion] Intel 82559ER switch
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:32:35 -0500, RB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FWIW, OpenWRT has some utils built-in to deal with these chipsets, I just don't have it working yet - robocfg. They've deprecated it in favor of a kernel driver, but all it does is uses a header file from Broadcom and twiddles some ioctls on the associated ethernet port according to the magic values therein. Are details on the Broadcom switch controllers openly available? I did not find anything on their web site.
Re: [pfSense-discussion] Intel 82559ER switch
What was the OS that had the support that you suggested? nb On 6/17/07, RB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As things stand, devices on separate ports are capable of communicating with each other, but the traffic is unseen on fxp0. Well, this is the normal behaviour of a switch... Agreed - I was just more hoping it was implemented as a bridge instead of as a simple port on the switch. The last OS on the system had port-level control over the switch, so there's got to be some control channel, be it out-of-band over the link, a PCI ioctl, or something. Guess I'll install Linux on it (my comfort zone) and poke around. Still open for suggestions, though. RB
Re: [pfSense-discussion] Intel 82559ER switch
/suggested/expected/ On 6/17/07, Nick Buraglio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What was the OS that had the support that you suggested? nb On 6/17/07, RB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As things stand, devices on separate ports are capable of communicating with each other, but the traffic is unseen on fxp0. Well, this is the normal behaviour of a switch... Agreed - I was just more hoping it was implemented as a bridge instead of as a simple port on the switch. The last OS on the system had port-level control over the switch, so there's got to be some control channel, be it out-of-band over the link, a PCI ioctl, or something. Guess I'll install Linux on it (my comfort zone) and poke around. Still open for suggestions, though. RB
Re: [pfSense-discussion] Intel 82559ER switch
On 6/17/07, Nick Buraglio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What was the OS that had the support that you expected? A crufty blend of only the finest proprietary software, based on VxWorks. x86 architecture. RB
Re: [pfSense-discussion] Intel 82559ER switch
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 11:23:29 -0500, RB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As things stand, devices on separate ports are capable of communicating with each other, but the traffic is unseen on fxp0. Well, this is the normal behaviour of a switch... Agreed - I was just more hoping it was implemented as a bridge instead of as a simple port on the switch. The last OS on the system had port-level control over the switch, so there's got to be some control channel, be it out-of-band over the link, a PCI ioctl, or something. Guess I'll install Linux on it (my comfort zone) and poke around. Still open for suggestions, though. The 5 port embedded switch is completely separate from the 82559ER and is probably linked without ethernet level conversion. Usually there are a small number of I/O lines or a serial interface for control. You can probably get the IC part number for the switch by visual inspection and possibly a data sheet through Google. The controllers I am familiar with even have configurable limited VLAN support. The Realtek RTL8305SC is typical: http://www.realtek.com.tw/products/productsView.aspx?Langid=1PNid=20PFid=20Level=5Conn=4ProdID=31
Re: [pfSense-discussion] Intel 82559ER switch
You can probably get the IC part number for the switch by visual inspection and possibly a data sheet through Google. The controllers I am familiar with even have configurable limited VLAN support. Seems it's a Broadcom BCM5325; since it had an adhered t-wing, I was unwilling to disturb the glue. So be it. There are two 8255ERs on-board, one with it's own dedicated port, the other connected to the BCM chip. Now to pick it apart. RB
