On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 11:44:09 +0200 Heiner Kallweit <hkallwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 25.09.2020 10:54, Petr Tesarik wrote: > > On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 09:30:37 +0200 > > Petr Tesarik <ptesa...@suse.cz> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 22:12:24 +0200 > >> Heiner Kallweit <hkallwe...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On 24.09.2020 21:14, Petr Tesarik wrote: > >>>> On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 11:57:41 +0200 > >>>> Heiner Kallweit <hkallwe...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On 03.09.2020 10:41, Petr Tesarik wrote: > >>>>>> Hi Heiner, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> this issue was on the back-burner for some time, but I've got some > >>>>>> interesting news now. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 14:07:50 +0200 > >>>>>> Heiner Kallweit <hkallwe...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> [...] > >>>>>>> Maybe the following gives us an idea: > >>>>>>> Please do "ethtool -d <if>" after boot and after resume from suspend, > >>>>>>> and check for differences. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The register dump did not reveal anything of interest - the only > >>>>>> differences were in the physical addresses after a device reopen. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> However, knowing that reloading the driver can fix the issue, I copied > >>>>>> the initialization sequence from init_one() to rtl8169_resume() and > >>>>>> gave it a try. That works! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Then I started removing the initialization calls one by one. This > >>>>>> exercise left me with a call to rtl_init_rxcfg(), which simply sets the > >>>>>> RxConfig register. In other words, these is the difference between > >>>>>> 5.8.4 and my working version: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> --- linux-orig/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169_main.c > >>>>>> 2020-09-02 22:43:09.361951750 +0200 > >>>>>> +++ linux/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169_main.c 2020-09-03 > >>>>>> 10:36:23.915803703 +0200 > >>>>>> @@ -4925,6 +4925,9 @@ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> clk_prepare_enable(tp->clk); > >>>>>> > >>>>>> + if (tp->mac_version == RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_37) > >>>>>> + RTL_W32(tp, RxConfig, RX128_INT_EN | RX_DMA_BURST); > >>>>>> + > >>>>>> if (netif_running(tp->dev)) > >>>>>> __rtl8169_resume(tp); > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This is quite surprising, at least when the device is managed by > >>>>>> NetworkManager, because then it is closed on wakeup, and the open > >>>>>> method should call rtl_init_rxcfg() anyway. So, it might be a timing > >>>>>> issue, or incorrect order of register writes. > >>>>>> > >>>>> Thanks for the analysis. If you manually bring down and up the > >>>>> interface, do you see the same issue? > >>>> > >>>> I'm not quite sure what you mean, but if the interface is configured > >>>> (and NetworkManager is stopped), I can do 'ip link set eth0 down' and > >>>> then 'ip link set eth0 up', and the interface is fully functional. > >>>> > >>>>> What is the value of RxConfig when entering the resume function? > >>>> > >>>> I added a dev_info() to rtl8169_resume(). First with NetworkManager > >>>> active (i.e. interface down on suspend): > >>>> > >>>> [ 525.956675] r8169 0000:03:00.2: RxConfig after resume: 0x0002400f > >>>> > >>>> Then I re-tried with NetworkManager stopped (i.e. interface up on > >>>> suspend). Same result: > >>>> > >>>> [ 785.413887] r8169 0000:03:00.2: RxConfig after resume: 0x0002400f > >>>> > >>>> I hope that's what you were asking for... > >>>> > >>>> Petr T > >>>> > >>> > >>> rtl8169_resume() has been changed in 5.9, therefore the patch doesn't > >>> apply cleanly on older kernel versions. Can you test the following > >>> on a 5.9-rc version or linux-next? > >> > >> I tried installing 5.9-rc6, but it freezes hard at boot, last message is: > >> > >> [ 14.916259] libphy: r8169: probed > >> > > This doesn't necessarily mean that the r8169 driver crashes the system. > Other things could run in parallel. It freezes w/o any message? The system freezes hard. I have already encountered a similar freeze with the alternative r8169 driver, so it's quite likely related. > >> At this point, I suspect you're right that the BIOS is seriously buggy. > >> Let me check if ASUSTek has released any update for this model. > > >[...] > > Does it make sense to bisect the change that broke the driver for me, or > > should I rather dispose of this waste^Wlaptop in an environmentally > > friendly manner? I mean, would you eventually accept a workaround for a few > > machines with a broken BIOS? > > > If the workaround is small and there's little chance to break other stuff: > then usually yes. > If you can spend the effort to bisect the issue, this would be appreciated. OK, then I'm going to give it a try. Stay tuned, Petr T
pgp9j4Faua3gv.pgp
Description: Digitálnà podpis OpenPGP
