>From: Keller, Jacob E <[email protected]> >Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2026 12:13 AM >On 5/4/2026 7:05 AM, David CARLIER wrote: >> Hi Andrew, >> >> No E610 here, found it by reading the code - the X550 path >> (ixgbe_get_eee_fw) uses a separate FW_PHY_ACT_UD_2 activity and >> ixgbe_lp_map[] for partner data, the E610 path just feeds >> pcaps.eee_cap from REPORT_ACTIVE_CFG into lp_advertised. None of >> the IXGBE_ACI_REPORT_* modes return partner info so that field >> can't be right. >> >> The set path goes hw->mac.ops.setup_eee() -> >> ixgbe_aci_set_phy_cfg(), >> so negotiation is in the firmware. eee_active / eee_enabled come >> from link.eee_status from the same FW, if those bits are right then >> negotiation works. Can't say more without hardware, Jedrzej or >> Aleksandr would know. >> >> Cheers > >Hi David, > >Thanks for the report and possible patch. The EEE support just merged, >and I believe the series has undergone testing. It is possible E610 is >significantly different from X550. > >@Jedrzej, > >Could you please look at this patch and the report from David and >confirm if we need this (or a different?) fix or if the code is correct >for E610 and explain why in that case? > >Thanks, >Jake
Sorry for the delay in responding, i just came back to the office an i didn't have access to my mailbox. After looking into documentation once again and checking it on my setup i see that David is right. What a catch, thanks! And sorry for my oversight, i was convinced that negotiated speeds are reported via that field and it somehow has not been exposed during my tests. Moreover, looks like E610 currently doesn't report such. So i believe we would like to have this fix, thank you once again. Reviewed-by: Jedrzej Jagielski <[email protected]> Jedrek
