djurny

Hi @Scott Ksander, Can you share on which I2C bus the RTC was detected? On my Nanopi Neo3 it was on i2c0, but I see in the meson DTs that RTC is on i2c2. Perhaps you can start with a barebones overlay and add until it starts to work. /dts-v1/; /plugin/; / { fragment@1 { target = <&i2c2>; __overlay__ { #address-cells = <1>; #size-cells = <0>; pcf8563@51 { compatible = "nxp,pcf8563"; reg = <0x51>; status = "okay"; }; }; }; }; Groetjes,

Some more info, I found a lot of DT entries for the PCF8563 in a recent codebase for some of the Amlogic SoCS, but not the C2. What is shown are: HC4 M2 Perhaps you can check if those overlays are compatible with the C2 and experiment a bit? Groetjes,

Hi @Scott Ksander, `i2cdetect` will just detect stuff on the I2C bus, you would not need a DT overlay for the device for that to work. For the kernel to detect the device and load the appropriate kernel module for it, you do have to make sure the device is known in the DT. I'm not sure about your board, but for a PCF8523 (different RTC) my Nanopi Neo3 I had to add or adjust an existing user overlay to make the PFC known to the kernel. /dts-v1/; /plugin/; / { compatible = "rockchip,rk3328"; fragment@1 { target = <&i2c0>; __overlay__ { #address-cells = <1>; #size-cells = <0>; pcf8523@68 { compatible = "nxp,pcf8523"; reg = <0x68>; status = "okay"; }; }; }; }; &rk805 { rk808-rtc { status = "disabled"; }; }; For a DS3231 I also had to add a user overlay that would tell the kernel that it can use the DS3232 driver for a DS3231 device. You most likely already found all the information on this already on the interwebs. You will have to adjust the compatible entry to your board, you might even try without that line completely. Add the file to `/boot/overlay-user/` and then compile and add to `armbianEnv.txt` using `armbian-add-overlay`. Groetjes,

Hi @Scott Ksander, Can you share a little more information? Like what errors are logged, which commands you tried to use, what DT and overlay you tried,etc. Thanks,

Hi @loeriver, Yes, it depends a bit on what brand/type and how you connect the USB to serial converter. The ones i use to monitor the serial console on all my SBCs have these spurious events as well, even when I do not connect the +5Vdc on the serial/UART end. For me they are sometimes preventing a full board shutdown as they seem to leach power to the SBC (not sure how this is happening electrically, perhaps some pull-ups allowing current to flow from RX into the Vcc of the board?). You could try to remove the dongle from the system to see if that has any effect to rule this out completely. Groetjes,

Hi there, I ran octoprint and klipper on a orangepi zero (not at the same time). Octoprint from docker and klipper I cannot remember. Octoprint ran fine but it did have some issues when the CPU got overloaded with loading a new gcode file while printing for example. If you do things one by one it should be OKish. Btw i ran octoprint in a 512MB version, not on the 256MB one. Groetjes,

Hi there, Then I would advise to try to: bridge NIC1 and NIC2, then configure the resulting bridge interface br0 to 192.168.100.101/24 configure 'device 1' to 192.168.100.102/24 or some other IP address that does not overlap/conflict with any other device on the 192.168.100.0/24 network. This setup should present "one interface" to the 192.168.100.0/24 network, pulling 'device 1' into the network as it were. I'm not sure if you have to enable ip forwarding in case you create a bridge, my experience with bridge (both networking and card wise) is limited. Groetjes, Btw, there has to be a reason why PC1 and the gateway/router in the red box are not able to be changed 😉 Perhaps the people that set it up that way were actively trying to prevent fanning out into different additional networks. (I know many employers do not allow this on their office network for example, for very good reasons...)

Not to forget this: What is your endgoal here? You just want to ping 'device 1' from PC1 ? Or you want to connect to 'device 1' from PC1 using some protocol? Gr,

Hi there, You could try to change 10.10.10.0/24 to 192.168.100.0 but this can cause IP overlap if you do not have control over the 192.168.100.0/24 network. If NIC1 and NIC2 are part of the same network, you will have to make sure that all traffic to the default gateway will exit via NIC1, `ip route` should show the device it will use. I do not have any experience with setting up bridge networks, perhaps someone else can help with that - using bridge containing both NIC1 and NIC2 might be the easiest way, but you will have to fix/work the IP address overlap it will create. (link: https://www.baeldung.com/linux/bridging-network-interfaces) Hope that helps, Groetjes,

Hi there, In this setup with these networks you specified, it is really PC1 - or the gateway/router in the red box that need to know where to send packets to for 10.10.10.0/24. This is usually done by a static route on the gateway/router, or by adding a hop in the routing on PC1. If neither know where packets for 10.10.10.0/24 need to go to, they will be forwarded to the default route of firstly PC1 (which is the gateway) and on the gateway/router's default route. If you can change neither, you will need to think about more exotic solutions, like setting up an ssh tunnel from PC1 and using rocky linux as a jumphost. Or, as you also imply, perhaps bridging 192.168.100.0/24 with 10.10.10.0/24, which (i think) will chaning 10.10.10.0/24 to a subnet of 192.168.100.0/24. What are your options/abilities in PC1 here? What can you change and what not? Do you have administrator rights for example? Can you run/install cygwin or any windows flavor of ssh for example? What is the WAN side of the gateway/router? The internets or some other network? What can also work is to put 'device 1' in that network, if all you need is to ping it. Groetjes,

Hi there, To make it more clear: On PC1: [As administrator] Add a route/hop via 'rocky linux' for packets destined for 10.10.10.0/24 https://www.howtogeek.com/22/adding-a-tcpip-route-to-the-windows-routing-table/ route ADD 10.10.10.0 MASK 255.255.255.0 192.168.100.101 On 'rocky linux' Raspberry Pi: Enable IPv4 forwarding: sudo sysctl -w net.ipv4.ip_forward=1 Add masquerading for NIC2 (10.10.10.1): sudo iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j MASQUERADE -o enp4s0 Or use the firewall-cmd thing, which you posted: sudo firewall-cmd --zone=public --add-masquerade Then try to ping 'device 1' from PC1 once more. The traceroute should show nexthop to be 'rocky linux' for any IP address in the range 10.10.10.0/24 if you configured the route/hop on PC1 correctly. Groetjes,

Hi there, Ah so PC1 is windows based? You need to set the route to 'rocky linux' on that box. Some googling shows you can add a route on windows: https://www.howtogeek.com/22/adding-a-tcpip-route-to-the-windows-routing-table/. I do not have any Windows PCs around to test this out though. Is your goal to only ping 'device 1' ? I presume that you have other things in mind that just pinging 'device 1' ? Another route you can try is to connect from PC1 to a specific port on 'rocky linux' and then have that port traffic forwarded/NATed to 'device 1'. Have not done that myself ever, but let's see. Groetjes,

Hi there, Not sure about the syntax of `firewall-cmd`, but you should only masquerade on the NIC connected to the 10.10.10.0/24 network, as masquerading does have some performance impact to/from that NIC. Seems you need to check which `zones` are defined and create a `zone` to only cover NIC2 on 'rocky linux'. For the `route` command, you can use the "new" `ip route` way: # type on PC1 sudo ip route add 10.10.10.0/24 via 192.168.100.101 This will tell PC1 to throw packets that are destined to reach the 10.10.10.0/24 network towards 'rocky linux''s NIC1. No, masquerading is done on the destination address of the IP packet, it will not change any source/destination port number. Masquerade here uses NAT, port is not translated. Groetjes,

Hi there, Ah that diagram changes things a little. You would need to add a route to PC1, so that it knows to send packets for device 1 via 'rocky linux'. sudo route add -net 10.10.10.0/24 gateway 192.168.100.101 That will make sure packets with destination 10.10.10.0/24 will be sent to 'rocky linux'. Then on 'rocky linux' the forwarding should handle forwarding those packages from NIC1 to NIC2. You will have NIC2 masquerade outgoing packets as 10.10.10.1 instead of the real source address 192.168.100.102, so 'device 1' will respond to 10.10.10.1 instead of 192.168.100.102 - as 'device 1' has no default route. Then on 'device 1', packets will arrive from "masqueraded" NIC2 10.10.10.1 and it should respond accordingly. Then on 'rocky linux' responses from 'device 1' will be received on NIC2, conntrack will know where the packet originally came from and send stuff back to 'PC1' This should work, but this is a little messy 🙂 Do ping back here! Groetjes,

Hi there, The `net.ipv4.ip_forward=1` will make the packets coming in on NIC1 be routed/sent to NIC2 due to the destination fitting in the network, but the device on NIC2 will not know how to send return packets to 192.168.100.*/24 as it does not have any fitting directly connected networks. Usually you could use default gateway/route to point them back to the Pi, but you said you cannot configure that. Try the following on the Pi: sudo iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j MASQUERADE -o enp4s0 That should enable NAT on NIC2, which will masquerade any packet sent from NIC2 with "source address" 10.10.10.*/24 which it does know how to talk to. Btw, can you confirm the following was indeed the output of `ip route`: 10.10.10.10/24 dev enp4s0 proto kernel scope link src 10.10.10.2 metric 100 One would expect 10.10.10.0/24 as network instead of 10.10.10.10/24. Groetjes,