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? >> 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. > > Hm, it took me about an hour wondering why I cannot flash the 314 update, but > then I finally noticed that this was for X543, while mine is an X453... *sigh* > > So, I'm at BIOS version 214, released in 2015, and that's the latest version. > There are some older versions available, but the BIOS Flash utility won't let > me downgrade. > > 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. > Petr T > Heiner
