Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-net v3] e1000e: Reconfigure PLL clock gate timeout and re-enable K1 on Meteor Lake

On 6/3/2026 10:20 AM, Jacob Keller wrote:
> On 6/3/2026 3:42 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> On 5/6/26 22:13, Jacob Keller wrote:
>>> On 5/6/2026 2:59 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>>> On 4/17/26 12:43, Dima Ruinskiy wrote:
>>>>> Commit 3c7bf5af21960 ("e1000e: Introduce private flag to disable K1")
>>>>> disabled K1 by default on Meteor Lake and newer systems due to packet
>>>>> loss observed on various platforms. However, disabling K1 caused an
>>>>> increase in power consumption.
>>>>>
>>>>> To mitigate this, reconfigure the PLL clock gate value so that K1 can
>>>>> remain enabled without incurring the additional power consumption.
>>>>> Re-enable K1 by default, but keep the private flag to support disabling
>>>>> it via ethtool. Additionally, introduce a DMI quirk table, so that K1 may
>>>>> be disabled by default on known problematic systems. Currently, this
>>>>> includes the Dell Pro 16 Plus, where the issue has been reported to persist
>>>>> despite the changes to the PLL lock timeout.
>>>>>
>>>>> Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=220954
>>>>> Link: https://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/intel-wired-lan/Week-of-Mon-20250623/048860.html
>>>>> Link: https://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/intel-wired-lan/Week-of-Mon-20260330/054059.html
>>>>
>>>> What happened to this fix for a regression first reported in January? It
>>>> looks like it fell through the cracks. Or was some other solution found?
>>>>
>>> There has been a bunch of back and forth discussion and varying versions
>>> of a fix for this. Its still in the Intel Wired LAN queue, and is
>>> currently waiting for one the E1000E team to report testing completed.
>>
>> What's the status? Just wondering, as it looks like this didn't make any
>> progress, but it's easy to miss things from where I stand.
>>
>> Ciao, Thorsten
> 
> Pushing Tony to the To line so he won't miss it, since he's back running
> the queue.

It's waiting on testing results from our validation; we're checking with 
them to see its status.

Thanks,
Tony