On 13/06/2017 11:39, Matthias May wrote: > On 12/06/17 15:22, Mason wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I am using the following drivers for Ethernet connectivity. >> drivers/net/ethernet/aurora/nb8800.c >> drivers/net/phy/at803x.c >> >> Pulling the cable and plugging it back works as expected. >> (I can ping both before and after.) >> >> However, if I toggle the link state in software (using ip link set), >> the board loses network connectivity. >> >> # Statically assign IP address >> ip addr add 172.27.64.77/18 brd 172.27.127.255 dev eth0 >> # Set link state to "up" >> ip link set eth0 up >> # ping -c 3 172.27.64.1 > /tmp/v1 >> >> PING 172.27.64.1 (172.27.64.1): 56 data bytes >> 64 bytes from 172.27.64.1: seq=0 ttl=64 time=18.321 ms >> >> --- 172.27.64.1 ping statistics --- >> 3 packets transmitted, 1 packets received, 66% packet loss >> round-trip min/avg/max = 18.321/18.321/18.321 ms >> >> >> 172.27.64.1 is a desktop system. >> Running >> % tcpdump -n -i eth1-boards ether host 00:16:e8:4d:7f:c4 >> on the desktop, I get: >> >> 15:01:45.187346 ARP, Request who-has 172.27.64.1 tell 172.27.64.77, length 46 >> 15:01:45.187359 ARP, Reply 172.27.64.1 is-at 00:15:17:24:e0:81, length 28 >> 15:01:45.194633 IP 172.27.64.77 > 172.27.64.1: ICMP echo request, id 41219, >> seq 0, length 64 >> 15:01:45.194662 IP 172.27.64.1 > 172.27.64.77: ICMP echo reply, id 41219, >> seq 0, length 64 >> 15:01:50.198564 ARP, Request who-has 172.27.64.77 tell 172.27.64.1, length 28 >> 15:01:50.205929 IP 172.27.64.77 > 172.27.64.1: ICMP echo request, id 41219, >> seq 1, length 64 >> 15:01:50.205951 IP 172.27.64.1 > 172.27.64.77: ICMP echo reply, id 41219, >> seq 1, length 64 >> 15:01:50.213217 IP 172.27.64.77 > 172.27.64.1: ICMP echo request, id 41219, >> seq 2, length 64 >> 15:01:50.213232 IP 172.27.64.1 > 172.27.64.77: ICMP echo reply, id 41219, >> seq 2, length 64 >> 15:01:51.198563 ARP, Request who-has 172.27.64.77 tell 172.27.64.1, length 28 >> 15:01:51.209586 ARP, Reply 172.27.64.77 is-at 00:16:e8:4d:7f:c4, length 46 >> 15:01:51.209598 ARP, Reply 172.27.64.77 is-at 00:16:e8:4d:7f:c4, length 46 >> >> Packet #1: the board asks for the desktop's MAC address >> Packet #2: the desktop replies instantly >> Packet #3: the board sends the first ping >> Packet #4: the desktop replies instantly >> Then the board goes quiet for a long time (why???) >> Packet #5: the desktop asks for the board's MAC address (doesn't it have it >> already?) >> Packet #6: this seems to unwedge the board, which sends the second ping >> Packet #7: the desktop replies instantly >> Packet #8: the board sends the third ping >> Packet #9: the desktop replies instantly >> Packet #10: the desktop asks again for the board's MAC address >> Packet #11 and #12: the board answers twice (for the old and new requests?) >> >> Some oddities, but it seems to work. >> >> Now toggle the link state: >> >> % ip link set eth0 down >> % ip link set eth0 up >> % ping -c 3 172.27.64.1 > /tmp/v2 >> >> PING 172.27.64.1 (172.27.64.1): 56 data bytes >> >> --- 172.27.64.1 ping statistics --- >> 3 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss >> >> >> On the desktop, I see >> >> 15:14:03.900162 ARP, Request who-has 172.27.64.1 tell 172.27.64.77, length 46 >> 15:14:03.900175 ARP, Reply 172.27.64.1 is-at 00:15:17:24:e0:81, length 28 >> 15:14:05.017189 ARP, Request who-has 172.27.64.1 tell 172.27.64.77, length 46 >> 15:14:05.017200 ARP, Reply 172.27.64.1 is-at 00:15:17:24:e0:81, length 28 >> 15:14:06.030531 ARP, Request who-has 172.27.64.1 tell 172.27.64.77, length 46 >> 15:14:06.030541 ARP, Reply 172.27.64.1 is-at 00:15:17:24:e0:81, length 28 >> >> So basically, the board is asking the desktop for its MAC address, >> and the desktop is answering immediately. But the board doesn't seem >> to be getting the replies... Any ideas, or words of wisdom, as they say? > > You might want to read this thread: > https://www.mail-archive.com/netdev@vger.kernel.org/msg133896.html > The symptoms you describe are pretty much what we had at one point.
Hello Matthias, Yes, I remember discussing the issue with Zefir. https://www.mail-archive.com/netdev@vger.kernel.org/msg147369.html Do you think I should apply Zefir's patch? In an attempt to remove the Atheros driver from the equation, I used the generic PHY driver (I didn't build the Atheros driver at all). But this had no impact on the issue. Regards.
