From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 13 22:39:06 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 301CE16A47C for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 22:39:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from norgaard@locolomo.org) Received: from strange.daemonsecurity.com (59.Red-81-33-11.staticIP.rima-tde.net [81.33.11.59]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A63DC43F38 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 22:35:11 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from norgaard@locolomo.org) Received: from [10.35.4.65] (65.4-35-10-static.chueca.wifi [10.35.4.65]) by strange.daemonsecurity.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B51F22E0F2 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 23:35:00 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4558F2A6.7040605@locolomo.org> Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 23:33:10 +0100 From: Erik Norgaard User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20061022) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: FreeBSD Questions References: <4557A858.8010706@locolomo.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Subject: Re: Testing firewire X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 22:39:06 -0000 David Kelly wrote: > On Nov 12, 2006, at 5:03 PM, Erik Norgaard wrote: > >> So I thought: Is this like ethernet that I need a crossed cable or >> can I connect the two with an ordinary cable and check that it works? > > There is no master nor slave in Firewire, all are peers, and all have > (essentially) the same socket. If the cable fits, it works. Witness > the difference between a hardware standard driven by Apple (Firewire) > and one from Intel/Microsoft (USB). > > You might also try fwe(4) if your other OS's are capable of doing IP > over firewire. OK, so I tried, and what can I deduce from this: I configured fwe0 on both and pinged from A to B, no response was received: B crashed (ok, so I assume this means it doesn't work). Interestingly, this one has a Ricoh R5C552 chipset which should be supported. But, it could be a conflict on the PCI-Cardbus bridge with the same IRQ? On A, this output appeared in dmesg: fwohci0: BUS reset fwohci0: node_id=0xc000ffc1, gen=3, CYCLEMASTER mode firewire0: 2 nodes, maxhop <= 1, cable IRM = 1 (me) firewire0: bus manager 1 (me) fwohci0: BUS reset fwohci0: node_id=0x8000ffc0, gen=4, non CYCLEMASTER mode firewire0: 2 nodes, maxhop <= 1, cable IRM = 1 firewire0: bus manager 1 firewire0: New S400 device ID:00e0180003094339 fwohci0: BUS reset fwohci0: node_id=0xc000ffc0, gen=5, CYCLEMASTER mode firewire0: 1 nodes, maxhop <= 0, cable IRM = 0 (me) firewire0: bus manager 0 (me) Does this mean it works? (the last 4 lines appeared after the other machine crashed). The interesting thing is that this one has a Texas Instruments PCI7x20 1394a-2000 OHCI Two-Port PHY/Link-Layer Controller, attached to a Texas Instruments PCI7420 FireWire + CardBuss bridge. None are on the hardware list (R6.1). The bridge also have a Texas Instruments "PCI7420/PCI7620 Dual Socket CardBus and Smart Card Cont. w/ 1394a-2000 OHCI Two-Port PHY/Link-Layer Cont. and SD/MS-Pro Sockets" attached which doesn't work. I'd be happy if things work on A, as this is my new machine :) Thanks, Erik -- Ph: +34.666334818 web: http://www.locolomo.org X.509 Certificate: http://www.locolomo.org/crt/8D03551FFCE04F0C.crt Key ID: 69:79:B8:2C:E3:8F:E7:BE:5D:C3:C3:B1:74:62:B8:3F:9F:1F:69:B9