Upgradeing 2.6.21.7->2.6.22.9 kill my network (sky2): sky2 eth0: rx error, status 0x402300 length 60

Upgradeing 2.6.21.7->2.6.22.9 kill my network (sky2): sky2 eth0: rx error, status 0x402300 length 60

[Krzysztof Oledzki]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 4217 bytes --]

Hello,

After upgrading my kernel from 2.6.21.7 to 2.6.22.9 my 88E8053 no longer 
works:

sky2 0000:02:00.0: v1.14 addr 0xcfffc000 irq 17 Yukon-EC (0xb6) rev 1
sky2 eth0: addr 00:11:d8:50:f6:28
sky2 eth0: enabling interface
sky2 eth0: ram buffer 48K
sky2 eth0: Link is up at 100 Mbps, full duplex, flow control both
sky2 eth0: rx error, status 0x402300 length 60
sky2 eth0: rx error, status 0x402500 length 60
sky2 eth0: rx error, status 0x402300 length 60
sky2 eth0: rx error, status 0x402500 length 60
sky2 eth0: rx error, status 0x402300 length 60
sky2 eth0: rx error, status 0x402500 length 60
sky2 eth0: rx error, status 0x402300 length 60
sky2 eth0: rx error, status 0x402300 length 60
sky2 eth0: rx error, status 0x402500 length 60
sky2 eth0: rx error, status 0x402300 length 60
sky2 eth0: rx error, status 0x402500 length 60
sky2 eth0: rx error, status 0x402500 length 60
sky2 eth0: rx error, status 0x402500 length 60
sky2 eth0: rx error, status 0x402500 length 60
(...)

I also compared lspci output from both 2.6.21/2.6.22 and it is the same:

02:00.0 Ethernet controller [0200]: Marvell Technology Group Ltd. 88E8053 PCI-E Gigabit Ethernet Controller [11ab:4362] (rev 15)
         Subsystem: ASUSTeK Computer Inc. Marvell 88E8053 Gigabit Ethernet controller PCIe (Asus) [1043:8142]
         Control: I/O+ Mem+ BusMaster+ SpecCycle- MemWINV- VGASnoop- ParErr- Stepping- SERR- FastB2B-
         Status: Cap+ 66MHz- UDF- FastB2B- ParErr- DEVSEL=fast >TAbort- <TAbort- <MAbort- >SERR- <PERR-
         Latency: 0, Cache Line Size: 16 bytes
         Interrupt: pin A routed to IRQ 221
         Region 0: Memory at cfffc000 (64-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=16K]
         Region 2: I/O ports at d800 [size=256]
         Expansion ROM at cffc0000 [disabled] [size=128K]
         Capabilities: [48] Power Management version 2
                 Flags: PMEClk- DSI- D1+ D2+ AuxCurrent=0mA PME(D0+,D1+,D2+,D3hot+,D3cold+)
                 Status: D0 PME-Enable- DSel=0 DScale=1 PME-
         Capabilities: [50] Vital Product Data
         Capabilities: [5c] Message Signalled Interrupts: Mask- 64bit+ Queue=0/1 Enable+
                 Address: 00000000fee0300c  Data: 41c9
         Capabilities: [e0] Express Legacy Endpoint IRQ 0
                 Device: Supported: MaxPayload 128 bytes, PhantFunc 0, ExtTag-
                 Device: Latency L0s unlimited, L1 unlimited
                 Device: AtnBtn- AtnInd- PwrInd-
                 Device: Errors: Correctable- Non-Fatal- Fatal- Unsupported-
                 Device: RlxdOrd- ExtTag- PhantFunc- AuxPwr+ NoSnoop-
                 Device: MaxPayload 128 bytes, MaxReadReq 512 bytes
                 Link: Supported Speed 2.5Gb/s, Width x1, ASPM L0s, Port 0
                 Link: Latency L0s <256ns, L1 unlimited
                 Link: ASPM Disabled RCB 128 bytes CommClk- ExtSynch-
                 Link: Speed 2.5Gb/s, Width x1
00: ab 11 62 43 07 04 10 00 15 00 00 02 04 00 00 00
10: 04 c0 ff cf 00 00 00 00 01 d8 00 00 00 00 00 00
20: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 43 10 42 81
30: 00 00 fc cf 48 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0a 01 00 00
40: 00 00 f0 01 00 80 a0 01 01 50 02 fe 00 20 00 14
50: 03 5c 00 80 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 01 05 e0 83 00
60: 0c 30 e0 fe 00 00 00 00 c9 41 00 00 00 00 00 00
70: 00 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
80: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
90: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
a0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
b0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
c0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
d0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
e0: 10 00 11 00 c0 0f 00 00 00 24 1b 00 11 a4 03 00
f0: 08 00 11 10 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00


It is quite strange as on the other similar system (only rev 1/2 
difference), sky2 driver from this 2.6.22 kernel solved my problem 
(network hangs):

sky2 0000:03:00.0: v1.14 addr 0xf1000000 irq 16 Yukon-EC (0xb6) rev 2
sky2 eth0: addr 00:16:e6:5f:64:24
sky2 eth0: enabling interface
sky2 eth0: ram buffer 48K
sky2 eth0: Link is up at 1000 Mbps, full duplex, flow control both

Best regards,

 				Krzysztof Olędzki

Re: Upgradeing 2.6.21.7->2.6.22.9 kill my network (sky2): sky2 eth0: rx error, status 0x402300 length 60

[Krzysztof Oledzki]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 285 bytes --]



On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:

> Hello,
>
> After upgrading my kernel from 2.6.21.7 to 2.6.22.9 my 88E8053 no longer 
> works:

Small update: 2.6.22.9 with sky2.c/sky2.h from 2.4.22.4 works without any 
problems.

Best regards,


 				Krzysztof Olędzki

Re: Upgrading 2.6.21.7->2.6.22.9 kills my network (sky2): sky2 eth0: rx error, status 0x402300 length 60

[Krzysztof Oledzki]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 883 bytes --]



On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>> 
>> After upgrading my kernel from 2.6.21.7 to 2.6.22.9 my 88E8053 no longer 
>> works:
>
> Small update: 2.6.22.9 with sky2.c/sky2.h from 2.4.22.4 works without any 
> problems.

Final update.

Reverting this patch: 
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-2.6.22.y.git;a=commitdiff_plain;h=8c07a8e30ba8a2e0831da4b134202598435f8358
solved my problem.

I also found this one:

http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff_plain;h=d6532232cd3de79c852685823a9c52f723816d0a

Could it go to a next -stable ASAP, please? It seems that 
2.6.22.5-2.6.22.9 kernels have broken sky2 if used with vlans. :( Such 
regression in a -stable kernel isn't nice. :(

Best regards,

 				Krzysztof Olędzki

Re: [stable] Upgrading 2.6.21.7->2.6.22.9 kills my network (sky2): sky2 eth0: rx error, status 0x402300 length 60

[Greg KH]

On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 01:11:27PM +0200, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>> After upgrading my kernel from 2.6.21.7 to 2.6.22.9 my 88E8053 no longer 
>>> works:
>>
>> Small update: 2.6.22.9 with sky2.c/sky2.h from 2.4.22.4 works without any 
>> problems.
>
> Final update.
>
> Reverting this patch: 
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-2.6.22.y.git;a=commitdiff_plain;h=8c07a8e30ba8a2e0831da4b134202598435f8358
> solved my problem.
>
> I also found this one:
>
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff_plain;h=d6532232cd3de79c852685823a9c52f723816d0a
>
> Could it go to a next -stable ASAP, please? It seems that 2.6.22.5-2.6.22.9 
> kernels have broken sky2 if used with vlans. :( Such regression in a 
> -stable kernel isn't nice. :(

So should we just apply the second patch?  I'll let Stephen tell us what
we should do :)

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [stable] Upgrading 2.6.21.7->2.6.22.9 kills my network (sky2): sky2 eth0: rx error, status 0x402300 length 60

[Krzysztof Oledzki]

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Greg KH wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 01:11:27PM +0200, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>> After upgrading my kernel from 2.6.21.7 to 2.6.22.9 my 88E8053 no longer
>>>> works:
>>>
>>> Small update: 2.6.22.9 with sky2.c/sky2.h from 2.4.22.4 works without any
>>> problems.
>>
>> Final update.
>>
>> Reverting this patch:
>> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-2.6.22.y.git;a=commitdiff_plain;h=8c07a8e30ba8a2e0831da4b134202598435f8358
>> solved my problem.
>>
>> I also found this one:
>>
>> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff_plain;h=d6532232cd3de79c852685823a9c52f723816d0a
>>
>> Could it go to a next -stable ASAP, please? It seems that 2.6.22.5-2.6.22.9
>> kernels have broken sky2 if used with vlans. :( Such regression in a
>> -stable kernel isn't nice. :(
>
> So should we just apply the second patch?  I'll let Stephen tell us what
> we should do :)
>

Second patch works for me, so IMHO yes. Forget to mention that earlier, 
sorry. Ofcourse this should be the maintainer decision, this is only my 
vote. :)