Re: [PATCH] ixgbe: E610: do not fill EEE lp_advertised from local PHY caps

[Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>]

On 5/7/2026 2:50 AM, Jagielski, Jedrzej wrote:
>> From: Keller, Jacob E <jacob.e.keller@intel.com> 
>> 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 <jedrzej.jagielski@intel.com>
> 
> Jedrek

Great, thanks!