I will buy a hub and test.
I have a Sagemcom modem with gigagabit ethernet ports, so the '100M' is not a valid explanation for this issue. Tested also with an A-Link WNAP router - no difference.daz wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 8:18 pmI used to have this when I first got my X5000. I'm told it's due to the ports your X5000 is connected to, apparently some 100Mbit ports don't fully comply and upset the DPAA. I use a 5 port hub now, and that doesn't cause problems. Do you have a different router you could try? Or can you connect through a Hub device first?
Many thanks for testing the final kernel 5.7!
Thanks a lot for testing!
Code: Select all
This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled powerpc/64s: Fix KVM interrupt using wrong save area to the 5.7-stable tree which can be found at: http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary The filename of the patch is: powerpc-64s-fix-kvm-interrupt-using-wrong-save-area.patch and it can be found in the queue-5.7 subdirectory. If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree, please let <firstname.lastname@example.org> know about it. >From 0bdcfa182506526fbe4e088ff9ca86a31b81828d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nicholas Piggin <email@example.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 16:12:47 +1000 Subject: powerpc/64s: Fix KVM interrupt using wrong save area From: Nicholas Piggin <firstname.lastname@example.org> commit 0bdcfa182506526fbe4e088ff9ca86a31b81828d upstream. The CTR register reload in the KVM interrupt path used the wrong save area for SLB (and NMI) interrupts. Fixes: 9600f261acaa ("powerpc/64s/exception: Move KVM test to common code") Cc: email@example.com # v5.7+ Reported-by: Christian Zigotzky <firstname.lastname@example.org> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Piggin <email@example.com> Tested-by: Christian Zigotzky <firstname.lastname@example.org> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <email@example.com> Link: https://firstname.lastname@example.org Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <email@example.com> --- arch/powerpc/kernel/exceptions-64s.S | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/exceptions-64s.S +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/exceptions-64s.S @@ -270,7 +270,7 @@ BEGIN_FTR_SECTION END_FTR_SECTION_IFSET(CPU_FTR_CFAR) .endif - ld r10,PACA_EXGEN+EX_CTR(r13) + ld r10,IAREA+EX_CTR(r13) mtctr r10 BEGIN_FTR_SECTION ld r10,IAREA+EX_PPR(r13) @@ -298,7 +298,7 @@ END_FTR_SECTION_IFSET(CPU_FTR_HAS_PPR) .if IKVM_SKIP 89: mtocrf 0x80,r9 - ld r10,PACA_EXGEN+EX_CTR(r13) + ld r10,IAREA+EX_CTR(r13) mtctr r10 ld r9,IAREA+EX_R9(r13) ld r10,IAREA+EX_R10(r13) Patches currently in stable-queue which might be from firstname.lastname@example.org are queue-5.7/powerpc-64s-kuap-add-missing-isync-to-kuap-restore-p.patch queue-5.7/powerpc-64s-exceptions-machine-check-reconcile-irq-s.patch queue-5.7/powerpc-64s-fix-kvm-interrupt-using-wrong-save-area.patch queue-5.7/powerpc-book3s64-radix-tlb-determine-hugepage-flush-.patch queue-5.7/powerpc-64s-exception-fix-machine-check-no-loss-idle.patch queue-5.7/powerpc-pseries-ras-fix-fwnmi_valid-off-by-one.patch
Christian, did you already get and test a hub...? Did that solve the problem?