Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [External] Re: [PATCH 3/3] Revert "e1000e: Add handshake with the CSME to support S0ix" | From | "Ruinskiy, Dima" <> | Date | Wed, 1 Dec 2021 18:38:06 +0200 |
| |
On 30/11/2021 17:52, Mark Pearson wrote: > Hi Sasha > > On 2021-11-28 08:23, Sasha Neftin wrote: >> On 11/22/2021 18:19, Kai-Heng Feng wrote: >>> This reverts commit 3e55d231716ea361b1520b801c6778c4c48de102. >>> >>> Bugzilla: >>> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=214821>>> >>> Signed-off-by: Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@canonical.com> >>> --- > <snip> >>> >> Hello Kai-Heng, >> I believe it is the wrong approach. Reverting this patch will put >> corporate systems in an unpredictable state. SW will perform s0ix flow >> independent to CSME. (The CSME firmware will continue run >> independently.) LAN controller could be in an unknown state. >> Please, afford us to continue to debug the problem (it is could be >> incredible complexity) >> >> You always can skip the s0ix flow on problematic corporate systems by >> using privilege flag: ethtool --set-priv-flags enp0s31f6 s0ix-enabled off >> >> Also, there is no impact on consumer systems. >> Sasha > > I know we've discussed this offline, and your team are working on the > correct fix but I wanted to check based on your comments above that "it > was complex". I thought, and maybe misunderstood, that it was going to > be relatively simple to disable the change for older CPUs - which is the > biggest problem caused by the patch. > > Right now it's breaking networking for folk who happen to have a vPro > Tigerlake (and I believe even potentially Cometlake or older) system. I > think the impact of that could potentially be quite severe. > > I understand not wanting to revert the change for the ADL platforms I > believe this is targeting and to fix this instead - but your comment > made me nervous that Linux users on older Intel based platforms are in > for a long and painful wait - it is likely a lot of users.... > > Can you or Dima confirm the fix for older platforms will be available > soon? I appreciate the ADL platform might take a bit more work and time > to get right. > > Thanks > Mark > Hi Mark,
What we currently see is that the issue manifests itself similarly on ADL and TGL platforms. Thus, the fix will likely be the same for both.
If we cannot find a proper fix soon, we will provide a workaround (for example by temporary disabling the feature on vPro platforms until we do have a fix).
This can be done without reverting the patch series, and I don't see much value in selectively disabling it for CML/TGL while leaving it on for ADL, unless our ongoing debug shows otherwise.
--Dima
| |