From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mason Subject: Re: Debugging Ethernet issues Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 14:28:28 +0100 Message-ID: <5829BBFC.7040800@free.fr> References: <5827AD4A.7010908@free.fr> <20161113030919.GA2892@lunn.ch> <5828C452.6050808@free.fr> <9d1f28a7-959b-fdde-3403-f6da5f521125@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: netdev , Mans Rullgard , Sergei Shtylyov , Tom Lendacky , Zach Brown , Shaohui Xie , Tim Beale , Brian Hill , Vince Bridgers , Balakumaran Kannan , "David S. Miller" , Sebastian Frias , Kirill Kapranov To: Florian Fainelli , Andrew Lunn Return-path: Received: from smtp5-g21.free.fr ([212.27.42.5]:12835 "EHLO smtp5-g21.free.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752190AbcKNN3N (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Nov 2016 08:29:13 -0500 In-Reply-To: <9d1f28a7-959b-fdde-3403-f6da5f521125@gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 13/11/2016 20:55, Florian Fainelli wrote: > Le 13/11/2016 à 11:51, Mason a écrit : >> On 13/11/2016 04:09, Andrew Lunn wrote: >> >>> Mason wrote: >>> >>>> When connected to a Gigabit switch >>>> 3.4 negotiates a LAN DHCP setup instantly >>>> 4.7 requires over 5 seconds to do so >>> >>> When you run tcpdump on the DHCP server, are you noticing the first >>> request is missing? >>> >>> What can happen is the dhclient gets started immediately and sends out >>> its first request before auto-negotiation has finished. So this first packet >>> gets lost. The retransmit after a few seconds is then successful. >> >> I will run tcpdump on the server as I run udhcpc on the client >> for Linux 3.4 vs 4.7 >> >> Do you know what would make auto-negotiation fail at 100 Mbps >> on 4.7? (whereas it succeeds on 3.4) >> >> (Thinking out loud) If the problem were in auto-negotiation, >> then if should work if I hard-code speed and duplex using >> ethtool, right? (IIRC, hard-coding doesn't help.) > > I would start with checking basic things: > > - does your Ethernet driver get a link UP being reported correctly > (netif_carrier_ok returns 1)? I don't see any calls to netif_carrier_ok() in the network driver ( drivers/net/ethernet/aurora/nb8800.c ) Maybe it is using some generic infrastructure? > - if you let the bootloader configure the PHY and utilize the Generic > PHY driver instead of the Atheros PHY driver, does the problem appear as > well? How exactly does one use the generic PHY driver? Do you mean the following? Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/fixed-link.txt Regards.