This is a not a small patch for a fix.
Could you consider splitting it up a bit?
Say one patch for the ENETC_TBPIR/ENETC_TBCIR
portion and another for the graceful stop?

Sure, I will, thanks.

quoted

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc.c

b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc.c

quoted

index 70768392912c..825a5d1f2965 100644

--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc.c

@@ -2578,6 +2578,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(enetc_free_si_resources);

 static void enetc_setup_txbdr(struct enetc_hw *hw, struct enetc_bdr

*tx_ring)

quoted

 {
+	struct enetc_si *si = container_of(hw, struct enetc_si, hw);
 	int idx = tx_ring->index;
 	u32 tbmr;

@@ -2595,6 +2596,14 @@ static void enetc_setup_txbdr(struct enetc_hw

*hw, struct enetc_bdr *tx_ring)

The line above this hunk is:

	/* clearing PI/CI registers for Tx not supported, adjust sw indexes */

And the AI generated review reports:

  This isn't a bug, but the comment now contradicts the code. The comment
  says "clearing PI/CI registers for Tx not supported" but the code
  immediately below clears TBPIR and TBCIR for ENETC v4 hardware.

  Should the comment be updated to clarify that clearing is only
  unsupported on ENETC rev1?

I will update the comments, only ENETC v1 does not support setting
PIR and CIR.

quoted

 	tx_ring->next_to_use = enetc_txbdr_rd(hw, idx, ENETC_TBPIR);
 	tx_ring->next_to_clean = enetc_txbdr_rd(hw, idx, ENETC_TBCIR);

+	if (tx_ring->next_to_use != tx_ring->next_to_clean &&
+	    !is_enetc_rev1(si)) {
+		tx_ring->next_to_use = 0;
+		tx_ring->next_to_clean = 0;
+		enetc_txbdr_wr(hw, idx, ENETC_TBPIR, 0);
+		enetc_txbdr_wr(hw, idx, ENETC_TBCIR, 0);
+	}
+
 	/* enable Tx ints by setting pkt thr to 1 */
 	enetc_txbdr_wr(hw, idx, ENETC_TBICR0, ENETC_TBICR0_ICEN | 0x1);

...

quoted

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc4_pf.c

b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc4_pf.c

...

quoted

@@ -801,15 +792,120 @@ static void enetc4_set_tx_pause(struct enetc_pf

*pf, int num_rxbdr, bool tx_paus

quoted

 	enetc_port_wr(hw, ENETC4_PPAUOFFTR, pause_off_thresh);
 }

-static void enetc4_enable_mac(struct enetc_pf *pf, bool en)
+static void enetc4_mac_wait_tx_empty(struct enetc_si *si, int mac)
+{
+	u32 timeout = 0;
+
+	while (!(enetc_port_rd(&si->hw, ENETC4_PM_IEVENT(mac)) &
+		 PM_IEVENT_TX_EMPTY)) {
+		if (timeout >= 100) {
+			dev_warn(&si->pdev->dev,
+				 "MAC %d TX is not empty\n", mac);
+			break;
+		}
+
+		usleep_range(100, 110);
+		timeout++;
+	}
+}

Can this be implemented using poll_timeout_us() ?

Sure, thanks.