On 5/7/2026 2:50 AM, Jagielski, Jedrzej wrote: >> 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
Great, thanks!
