[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250731071900.5513e432@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2025 07:19:00 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: "Ruinskiy, Dima" <dima.ruinskiy@...el.com>
Cc: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>, "Lifshits, Vitaly"
<vitaly.lifshits@...el.com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
"andrew+netdev@...n.ch" <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "davem@...emloft.net"
<davem@...emloft.net>, "edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org"
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "Nguyen, Anthony L" <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next v1 1/1] e1000e: Introduce private flag and module
param to disable K1
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 10:00:44 +0300 Ruinskiy, Dima wrote:
> My concern here is not as much as how to set the private flag
> automatically at each boot (I leave this to the system administrator).
>
> The concern is whether it can be set early enough during probe() to be
> effective. There is a good deal of HW access that happens during
> probe(). If it takes place before the flag is set, the HW can enter a
> bad state and changing K1 behavior later on does not always recover it.
>
> With the module parameter, adapter->flags2 |= FLAG2_DISABLE_K1 gets set
> inside e1000e_check_options(), which is before any HW access takes
> place. If the private flag method can give similar guarantees, then it
> would be sufficient.
Presumably you are going to detect all the bad SKUs in the driver to
the best of your ability. So we're talking about a workaround that lets
the user tweak things until a relevant patch reaches stable..
Powered by blists - more mailing lists