lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 23 Sep 2020 22:46:25 +0800
From:   Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@...onical.com>
To:     Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>
Cc:     Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
        "open list:NETWORKING DRIVERS" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "moderated list:INTEL ETHERNET DRIVERS" 
        <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] e1000e: Power cycle phy on PM resume

Hi Paul,

> On Sep 23, 2020, at 21:28, Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de> wrote:
> 
> Dear Kai-Heng,
> 
> 
> Am 23.09.20 um 09:47 schrieb Kai-Heng Feng:
>> We are seeing the following error after S3 resume:
>> [  704.746874] e1000e 0000:00:1f.6 eno1: Setting page 0x6020
>> [  704.844232] e1000e 0000:00:1f.6 eno1: MDI Write did not complete
>> [  704.902817] e1000e 0000:00:1f.6 eno1: Setting page 0x6020
>> [  704.903075] e1000e 0000:00:1f.6 eno1: reading PHY page 769 (or 0x6020 shifted) reg 0x17
>> [  704.903281] e1000e 0000:00:1f.6 eno1: Setting page 0x6020
>> [  704.903486] e1000e 0000:00:1f.6 eno1: writing PHY page 769 (or 0x6020 shifted) reg 0x17
>> [  704.943155] e1000e 0000:00:1f.6 eno1: MDI Error
>> ...
>> [  705.108161] e1000e 0000:00:1f.6 eno1: Hardware Error
>> Since we don't know what platform firmware may do to the phy, so let's
>> power cycle the phy upon system resume to resolve the issue.
> 
> Is there a bug report or list thread for this issue?

No. That's why I sent a patch to start discussion :)

> 
>> Signed-off-by: Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@...onical.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c | 2 ++
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c
>> index 664e8ccc88d2..c2a87a408102 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c
>> @@ -6968,6 +6968,8 @@ static __maybe_unused int e1000e_pm_resume(struct device *dev)
>>  	    !e1000e_check_me(hw->adapter->pdev->device))
>>  		e1000e_s0ix_exit_flow(adapter);
>>  +	e1000_power_down_phy(adapter);
>> +
>>  	rc = __e1000_resume(pdev);
>>  	if (rc)
>>  		return rc;
> 
> How much does this increase the resume time?

I didn't measure it. Because for me it's more important to have a working device.

Does it have a noticeable impact on your system's resume time?

Kai-Heng

> 
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Paul
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists