[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e4c52eb0-9d3b-4c9a-879e-bf796dbd479f@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 12:51:44 +0200
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Fiona Klute <fiona.klute@....de>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
Thangaraj Samynathan <Thangaraj.S@...rochip.com>,
Rengarajan Sundararajan <Rengarajan.S@...rochip.com>,
UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-list@...pberrypi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] net: phy: microchip: force IRQ polling mode for
lan88xx
On 4/17/25 11:05 AM, Fiona Klute wrote:
> Am 16.04.25 um 12:24 schrieb Fiona Klute:
>> With lan88xx based devices the lan78xx driver can get stuck in an
>> interrupt loop while bringing the device up, flooding the kernel log
>> with messages like the following:
>>
>> lan78xx 2-3:1.0 enp1s0u3: kevent 4 may have been dropped
>>
>> Removing interrupt support from the lan88xx PHY driver forces the
>> driver to use polling instead, which avoids the problem.
>>
>> The issue has been observed with Raspberry Pi devices at least since
>> 4.14 (see [1], bug report for their downstream kernel), as well as
>> with Nvidia devices [2] in 2020, where disabling polling was the
>
> I noticed I got words mixed up here, needs to be either "disabling
> interrupts" or "forcing polling", not "disabling polling".
>
> Should I re-send, or is that something that can be fixed while applying?
No need to repost, I'll update the sentence while applying.
Thanks,
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists