NanoPi R6S wrong network interface naming

[Afritic Group]

Unfortunately, there seems not yet to be an area in this forum for NanoPi R6C/S, so here we go ...

 

Here is the default Armbian /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules

 

SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*", KERNELS=="fe1c0000.ethernet", NAME:="wan"
SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="r8169", KERNELS=="0003:31:00.0", NAME:="lan1"
SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="r8169", KERNELS=="0004:41:00.0", NAME:="lan2"

 

This does not match up with the labels on the case!

Here is the correct config we have updated and tested on a NanoPi R6S at Afritic Group:

 

SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*", KERNELS=="fe1c0000.ethernet", NAME:="lan2"
SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="r8169", KERNELS=="0003:31:00.0", NAME:="wan"
SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="r8169", KERNELS=="0004:41:00.0", NAME:="lan1"

So now with this updated config, the internal and external names match up!

 

[Igor]

Please test with both kernels, 6.12.y and stock 6.1.y and then propose changes:

https://github.com/armbian/build/blob/main/config/boards/nanopi-r6s.conf#L30-L34

[Werner]

moved

Standard support forums are missing. Will be adjusted later

[Afritic Group]

Current Kernel is
Linux  6.1.75-vendor-rk35xx #1 SMP Tue Nov 12 08:48:32 UTC 2024 aarch64 GNU/Linux

 

[eselarm]

Note that for the NanoPi R6C it is correct. Although lan2 could be removed because PCI-E 0004 node contains my NVME SSD.

 

EDIT: I see https://github.com/armbian/build/blob/main/config/boards/nanopi-r6c.csc

is correct, no lan2.

It is just that on my installation the rules file is not updated. It is from image older than a year.

Edited December 11 by eselarm

[Afritic Group]

@eselarm: Thank you for your feedback! So to double check: The labels on the hardware and with e.g. ifconfig are correctly matching for R6C?

[eselarm]

Yes I explicitly checked. I personally do not really care about the labels/names in the software, although I must know what is what. I look at the picture of the PCB mostly. Or '1G' and '2.5G' that make more sense in my case as I do not use it as a router. I have defined a software ethernet bridge br0 that includes both ports as I need that for virtualization anyway.

[Afritic Group]

@Igor: Is there really a chance that Kernel 6.12.x would address PCIe different than 6.1.x? Aren't those addresses in hardware?

[eselarm]

It is the same for all kernels, I have installed and run 6.12.2 and 6.1.84. If it would be a PC motherboard you could swap PCI-E cards physically, but this SBCs is all soldered hardware. Extra sticker/labels on the case is maybe an option. Or FriendlyElec should have just numbered them eth0 eth1 eth2. Ubiquity routers have that. Or part of MAC address.

[Igor]

9 hours ago, Afritic Group said:

Is there really a chance that Kernel 6.12.x would address PCIe different than 6.1.x? Aren't those addresses in hardware?

 

In tl;dr;  format - kernel 6.1.x is private fork, where this SoC support was brought up. A lot of the HW specific code is done quick and dirty, which means in order to move this code to modern kernel, many parts has to be done from scratch. This means devices drivers can be fundamentally different, thus operating different. Sometimes worse or incomplete, usually better. This process is already in motion for about two years now and most of the SoC functions works. We have two Rock5 in production (Github runners for producing images) for about a year now, running modern kernel. I haven't update it for a long time, so its running some weird test version (Linux 6.7.0-rc1-edge-rockchip-rk3588, Up time: 66 days 8:25)