Intel e1000e driver bug on stable (6.9.x)

Intel e1000e driver bug on stable (6.9.x)

[Ismael Luceno]

Hi,

I noticed that the NIC started to fail on a couple of notebooks [0]
[1] after upgrading to 6.9.1.

I tracked down the problem to commit 861e8086029e ("e1000e: move force
SMBUS from enable ulp function to avoid PHY loss issue", 2024-03-03),
included in all 6.9.x releases.

The fix is in commit bfd546a552e1 ("e1000e: move force SMBUS near
the end of enable_ulp function", 2024-05-28) from mainline.

The NIC fails right after boot on both systems I tried; I mention
because the description is a bit unclear about that on the fix, maybe
other systems are affected differently.

Best regards.


[0] HP ZBook 17 Gen 1 (D5D93AV) [8086:153a (rev 04)]
[1] Lenovo Thinkpad P15 Gen 1 [8086:0d4c]

Re: Intel e1000e driver bug on stable (6.9.x)

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 10:33:19PM +0200, Ismael Luceno wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I noticed that the NIC started to fail on a couple of notebooks [0]
> [1] after upgrading to 6.9.1.
> 
> I tracked down the problem to commit 861e8086029e ("e1000e: move force
> SMBUS from enable ulp function to avoid PHY loss issue", 2024-03-03),
> included in all 6.9.x releases.
> 
> The fix is in commit bfd546a552e1 ("e1000e: move force SMBUS near
> the end of enable_ulp function", 2024-05-28) from mainline.
> 
> The NIC fails right after boot on both systems I tried; I mention
> because the description is a bit unclear about that on the fix, maybe
> other systems are affected differently.
> 
> Best regards.
> 
> 
> [0] HP ZBook 17 Gen 1 (D5D93AV) [8086:153a (rev 04)]
> [1] Lenovo Thinkpad P15 Gen 1 [8086:0d4c]
> 

Now queued up, thanks.

greg k-h

Re: Intel e1000e driver bug on stable (6.9.x)

[Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)]

On 13.06.24 10:35, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 10:33:19PM +0200, Ismael Luceno wrote:
>>
>> I noticed that the NIC started to fail on a couple of notebooks [0]
>> [1] after upgrading to 6.9.1.
>>
>> I tracked down the problem to commit 861e8086029e ("e1000e: move force
>> SMBUS from enable ulp function to avoid PHY loss issue", 2024-03-03),
>> included in all 6.9.x releases.
>>
>> The fix is in commit bfd546a552e1 ("e1000e: move force SMBUS near
>> the end of enable_ulp function", 2024-05-28) from mainline.
>>
>> The NIC fails right after boot on both systems I tried; I mention
>> because the description is a bit unclear about that on the fix, maybe
>> other systems are affected differently.
> 
> Now queued up, thanks.

I see that they are in the latest 6.6.y and 6.9.y stable-rcs. Thing is:

bfd546a552e1 causes other regressions, which is why Hui Wang submitted a
revert for that one:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240611062416.16440-1-hui.wang@canonical.com/

Vitaly Lifshits meanwhile submitted a change that afaics is meant to fix
that regression:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240613120134.224585-1-vitaly.lifshits@intel.com/

CCed both so they can comment.

Not sure what's the best way forward here, maybe it is "not picking up
bfd546a552e1 for now and waiting a few more days till the dust settles".

Ciao, Thorsten

Re: Intel e1000e driver bug on stable (6.9.x)

[Greg KH]

On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 08:58:11AM +0200, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
> On 13.06.24 10:35, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 10:33:19PM +0200, Ismael Luceno wrote:
> >>
> >> I noticed that the NIC started to fail on a couple of notebooks [0]
> >> [1] after upgrading to 6.9.1.
> >>
> >> I tracked down the problem to commit 861e8086029e ("e1000e: move force
> >> SMBUS from enable ulp function to avoid PHY loss issue", 2024-03-03),
> >> included in all 6.9.x releases.
> >>
> >> The fix is in commit bfd546a552e1 ("e1000e: move force SMBUS near
> >> the end of enable_ulp function", 2024-05-28) from mainline.
> >>
> >> The NIC fails right after boot on both systems I tried; I mention
> >> because the description is a bit unclear about that on the fix, maybe
> >> other systems are affected differently.
> > 
> > Now queued up, thanks.
> 
> I see that they are in the latest 6.6.y and 6.9.y stable-rcs. Thing is:
> 
> bfd546a552e1 causes other regressions, which is why Hui Wang submitted a
> revert for that one:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240611062416.16440-1-hui.wang@canonical.com/
> 
> Vitaly Lifshits meanwhile submitted a change that afaics is meant to fix
> that regression:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240613120134.224585-1-vitaly.lifshits@intel.com/
> 
> CCed both so they can comment.
> 
> Not sure what's the best way forward here, maybe it is "not picking up
> bfd546a552e1 for now and waiting a few more days till the dust settles".

Ok, I'll just not pick this one up and let the maintainers figure it
out as this is still broken in Linus's tree as well.

Thanks for noticing this!

thanks,

greg k-h