[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230204001332.dd4oq4nxqzmuhmb2@skbuf>
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2023 02:13:32 +0200
From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@...rochip.com>,
UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Wei Fang <wei.fang@....com>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>, kernel@...gutronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Arun.Ramadoss@...rochip.com, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 00/23] net: add EEE support for KSZ9477 and
AR8035 with i.MX6
On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 03:58:22PM +0100, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> With this patch series we provide EEE control for KSZ9477 family of switches and
> AR8035 with i.MX6 configuration.
> According to my tests, on a system with KSZ8563 switch and 100Mbit idle link,
> we consume 0,192W less power per port if EEE is enabled.
What is the code flow through the kernel with EEE? I wasn't able to find
a good explanation about it.
Is it advertised by default, if supported? I guess phy_advertise_supported()
does that.
But is that desirable? Doesn't EEE cause undesired latency for MAC-level
PTP timestamping on an otherwise idle link?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists