4.17-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Russell King <rmk+ker...@armlinux.org.uk>
[ Upstream commit 576cd32082351620a4e76b8babc4d5ae9b4bbb98 ]
It was been observed that with a particular order of initialisation,
the netdev can be up, but the SFP module still has its TX_DISABLE
signal asserted. This occurs when the network device brought up before
the SFP kernel module has been inserted by userspace.
This occurs because sfp-bus layer does not hear about the change in
network device state, and so assumes that it is still down. Set
netdev->sfp when the upstream is registered to work around this problem.
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+ker...@armlinux.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <da...@davemloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <alexander.le...@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@linuxfoundation.org>
---
drivers/net/phy/sfp-bus.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--- a/drivers/net/phy/sfp-bus.c
+++ b/drivers/net/phy/sfp-bus.c
@@ -349,7 +349,6 @@ static int sfp_register_bus(struct sfp_b
}
if (bus->started)
bus->socket_ops->start(bus->sfp);
- bus->netdev->sfp_bus = bus;
bus->registered = true;
return 0;
}
@@ -364,7 +363,6 @@ static void sfp_unregister_bus(struct sf
if (bus->phydev && ops && ops->disconnect_phy)
ops->disconnect_phy(bus->upstream);
}
- bus->netdev->sfp_bus = NULL;
bus->registered = false;
}
@@ -440,6 +438,7 @@ static void sfp_upstream_clear(struct sf
{
bus->upstream_ops = NULL;
bus->upstream = NULL;
+ bus->netdev->sfp_bus = NULL;
bus->netdev = NULL;
}
@@ -468,6 +467,7 @@ struct sfp_bus *sfp_register_upstream(st
bus->upstream_ops = ops;
bus->upstream = upstream;
bus->netdev = ndev;
+ ndev->sfp_bus = bus;
if (bus->sfp) {
ret = sfp_register_bus(bus);
