This regression was spotted between Debian squeeze and Debian wheezy
kernels (respectively based on 2.6.32 and 3.2). The fix was inspired
by <http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg178543.html>, using
RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_{25,26} for the RTL8168d/8111d chipset.
Probable regression from d4ed95d796e5126bba51466dc07e287cebc8bd19;
more chipsets are likely affected.
Tested on top of a 3.2.23 kernel.
Reported-by: Florent Fourcot <[email protected]>
Tested-by: Florent Fourcot <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Cyril Brulebois <[email protected]>
---
drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
It looks like RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_{25,26} are kinda supposed to go
together so I kept both. Florent's testing gave the following results:
- RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_25 only: FAIL.
- RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_26 only: SUCCESS.
- RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_25 + RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_26: SUCCESS.
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169.c
index e7ff886..eb6a5e4 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169.c
@@ -3827,6 +3827,8 @@ static void rtl_wol_suspend_quirk(struct rtl8169_private *tp)
void __iomem *ioaddr = tp->mmio_addr;
switch (tp->mac_version) {
+ case RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_25:
+ case RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_26:
case RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_29:
case RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_30:
case RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_32:
--
1.7.10.4
Cyril Brulebois <[email protected]> :
> This regression was spotted between Debian squeeze and Debian wheezy
> kernels (respectively based on 2.6.32 and 3.2). The fix was inspired
> by <http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg178543.html>, using
> RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_{25,26} for the RTL8168d/8111d chipset.
If someone experiences problems or has questions about WoL with
Realtek's 816x chipsets, http://marc.info/?t=132079219400004 would
imho be a better reference.
[...]
> Tested on top of a 3.2.23 kernel.
It should still be relevant for current kernel. I'll give it a try.
[...]
> It looks like RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_{25,26} are kinda supposed to go
> together so I kept both. Florent's testing gave the following results:
> - RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_25 only: FAIL.
> - RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_26 only: SUCCESS.
> - RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_25 + RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_26: SUCCESS.
I don't understand the VER_25 vs VER_26 difference.
--
Ueimor
Francois Romieu <[email protected]> (29/10/2012):
> Cyril Brulebois <[email protected]> :
> > This regression was spotted between Debian squeeze and Debian wheezy
> > kernels (respectively based on 2.6.32 and 3.2). The fix was inspired
> > by <http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg178543.html>, using
> > RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_{25,26} for the RTL8168d/8111d chipset.
>
> If someone experiences problems or has questions about WoL with
> Realtek's 816x chipsets, http://marc.info/?t=132079219400004 would
> imho be a better reference.
Thanks. Should I re-send with that as reference, or will you amend the
patch once you're done with your testing?
> [...]
> > Tested on top of a 3.2.23 kernel.
>
> It should still be relevant for current kernel. I'll give it a try.
FWIW, further testing was suggested on some Debian lists, and 3.2.32
(which includes some commits related to r8169) is also affected.
> [...]
> > It looks like RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_{25,26} are kinda supposed to go
> > together so I kept both. Florent's testing gave the following results:
> > - RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_25 only: FAIL.
> > - RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_26 only: SUCCESS.
> > - RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_25 + RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_26: SUCCESS.
>
> I don't understand the VER_25 vs VER_26 difference.
Neither do I. We just figured that it would nice to test all three
cases since those two macros popped up when looking at the 8168D
family.
Mraw,
KiBi.
Cyril Brulebois <[email protected]> :
[...]
> Thanks. Should I re-send with that as reference, or will you amend the
> patch once you're done with your testing?
It would be nice to resend, directly to netdev and davem.
Shutdown Wol behaved as expected with 3.7-rc3 for both cards: unicast WoL
failed without the patch while broadcast WoL worked. Unicast and broadcast
worked after the patch.
--
Ueimor
This regression was spotted between Debian squeeze and Debian wheezy
kernels (respectively based on 2.6.32 and 3.2). More info about
Wake-on-LAN issues with Realtek's 816x chipsets can be found in the
following thread: http://marc.info/?t=132079219400004
Probable regression from d4ed95d796e5126bba51466dc07e287cebc8bd19;
more chipsets are likely affected.
Tested on top of a 3.2.23 kernel.
Reported-by: Florent Fourcot <[email protected]>
Tested-by: Florent Fourcot <[email protected]>
Hinted-by: Francois Romieu <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Cyril Brulebois <[email protected]>
---
drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
v2: Update link in commit message, and re-send to netdev/Dave according
to Francois Romieu's comment, thanks.
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169.c
index e7ff886..eb6a5e4 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169.c
@@ -3827,6 +3827,8 @@ static void rtl_wol_suspend_quirk(struct rtl8169_private *tp)
void __iomem *ioaddr = tp->mmio_addr;
switch (tp->mac_version) {
+ case RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_25:
+ case RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_26:
case RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_29:
case RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_30:
case RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_32:
--
1.7.10.4
Cyril Brulebois <[email protected]> :
> This regression was spotted between Debian squeeze and Debian wheezy
> kernels (respectively based on 2.6.32 and 3.2). More info about
> Wake-on-LAN issues with Realtek's 816x chipsets can be found in the
> following thread: http://marc.info/?t=132079219400004
David, please apply to -net.
Thanks.
--
Ueimor
From: Francois Romieu <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 23:21:13 +0100
> Cyril Brulebois <[email protected]> :
>> This regression was spotted between Debian squeeze and Debian wheezy
>> kernels (respectively based on 2.6.32 and 3.2). More info about
>> Wake-on-LAN issues with Realtek's 816x chipsets can be found in the
>> following thread: http://marc.info/?t=132079219400004
>
> David, please apply to -net.
Done.
Francois Romieu wrote:
> Cyril Brulebois <[email protected]> :
>> This regression was spotted between Debian squeeze and Debian wheezy
>> kernels (respectively based on 2.6.32 and 3.2). More info about
>> Wake-on-LAN issues with Realtek's 816x chipsets can be found in the
>> following thread: http://marc.info/?t=132079219400004
>
> David, please apply to -net.
This has been applied as commit b00e69dee4cc in mainline; thanks!
François and David, would this be a candidate for inclusion in
3.0- and newer stable kernels?
Jonathan
Jonathan Nieder <[email protected]> :
[...]
> This has been applied as commit b00e69dee4cc in mainline; thanks!
>
> Fran??ois and David, would this be a candidate for inclusion in
> 3.0- and newer stable kernels?
- 3.0.51
b00e69dee4ccbb3a19989e3d4f1385bc2e3406cd
aee77e4accbeb2c86b1d294cd84fec4a12dde3bd
- 3.4.18
0481776b7a70f09acf7d9d97c288c3a8403fbfe4
b00e69dee4ccbb3a19989e3d4f1385bc2e3406cd
aee77e4accbeb2c86b1d294cd84fec4a12dde3bd
- 3.6.6
0481776b7a70f09acf7d9d97c288c3a8403fbfe4
b00e69dee4ccbb3a19989e3d4f1385bc2e3406cd
aee77e4accbeb2c86b1d294cd84fec4a12dde3bd
I'll cook the patches.
--
Ueimor
From: Francois Romieu <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:03:39 +0100
> Jonathan Nieder <[email protected]> :
> [...]
>> This has been applied as commit b00e69dee4cc in mainline; thanks!
>>
>> Fran??ois and David, would this be a candidate for inclusion in
>> 3.0- and newer stable kernels?
>
> - 3.0.51
> b00e69dee4ccbb3a19989e3d4f1385bc2e3406cd
> aee77e4accbeb2c86b1d294cd84fec4a12dde3bd
>
> - 3.4.18
> 0481776b7a70f09acf7d9d97c288c3a8403fbfe4
> b00e69dee4ccbb3a19989e3d4f1385bc2e3406cd
> aee77e4accbeb2c86b1d294cd84fec4a12dde3bd
>
> - 3.6.6
> 0481776b7a70f09acf7d9d97c288c3a8403fbfe4
> b00e69dee4ccbb3a19989e3d4f1385bc2e3406cd
> aee77e4accbeb2c86b1d294cd84fec4a12dde3bd
>
> I'll cook the patches.
Thank you, these all look fine for -stable to me.
On Mon, 2012-11-12 at 18:27 -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Francois Romieu <[email protected]>
> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:03:39 +0100
>
> > Jonathan Nieder <[email protected]> :
> > [...]
> >> This has been applied as commit b00e69dee4cc in mainline; thanks!
> >>
> >> Fran??ois and David, would this be a candidate for inclusion in
> >> 3.0- and newer stable kernels?
> >
> > - 3.0.51
> > b00e69dee4ccbb3a19989e3d4f1385bc2e3406cd
> > aee77e4accbeb2c86b1d294cd84fec4a12dde3bd
> >
> > - 3.4.18
> > 0481776b7a70f09acf7d9d97c288c3a8403fbfe4
> > b00e69dee4ccbb3a19989e3d4f1385bc2e3406cd
> > aee77e4accbeb2c86b1d294cd84fec4a12dde3bd
> >
> > - 3.6.6
> > 0481776b7a70f09acf7d9d97c288c3a8403fbfe4
> > b00e69dee4ccbb3a19989e3d4f1385bc2e3406cd
> > aee77e4accbeb2c86b1d294cd84fec4a12dde3bd
> >
> > I'll cook the patches.
>
> Thank you, these all look fine for -stable to me.
I've queued up all three for 3.2.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
For every complex problem
there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.