Hi Sven,

On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 10:40 AM Sven Van Asbroeck [off-list ref] wrote:

Thank you for testing this out on a different platform !

I had a look at how things are done in the Freescale fork of the kernel
(5.4.24_2.1.0) and I noticed that this kernel has almost the same
behaviour as this proposed patch: the GPR5 bit is _always_ set
on a plus. The code does not check how the enet clock is generated.

https://source.codeaurora.org/external/imx/linux-imx/tree/arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-imx6q.c?h=rel_imx_5.4.24_2.1.0&id=babac008e5cf168abca1a85bda2e8071ca27a5c0#n269

Now, I'm assuming that the sabresd-plus can run on the Freescale
kernel fork. The GPR5 bit will always be set there.

Just tested 5.4.24_2.1.0 on an imx6qp sabresd and DHCP also fails there.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel