From: Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 10:26 PM

Hi Sven,

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

quoted

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://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsour

ce.codeaurora.org%2Fexternal%2Fimx%2Flinux-imx%2Ftree%2Farch%2Farm
%2Fm

quoted

ach-imx%2Fmach-imx6q.c%3Fh%3Drel_imx_5.4.24_2.1.0%26id%3Dbabac00
8e5cf1

quoted

68abca1a85bda2e8071ca27a5c0%23n269&data=02%7C01%7Cfugang.d
uan%40nx

quoted

p.com%7C8570de0304514796ea0208d81c385a11%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92
cd99c5c3

quoted

01635%7C0%7C1%7C637290375659016888&sdata=I9werBT%2FDkcWu
LEKlFVzRi2

quoted

KD%2FLwPz2QCqw%2BHn0HY8U%3D&reserved=0

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.

Fabio, we have LAVA daily test by networking for imx6qp sabresd board, no any issue found.
Please double check the issue on your local.
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel