Re: iwlwifi: AX201 misdetected as AX101

["Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)" <regressions@leemhuis.info>]

On 29.06.23 17:28, Barnabás Pőcze wrote:
> 2023. június 29., csütörtök 13:31 keltezéssel, Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@leemhuis.info> írta:
>> On 27.06.23 23:55, Barnabás Pőcze wrote:
>>> 2023. május 26., péntek 19:55 keltezéssel, Barnabás Pőcze <pobrn@protonmail.com> írta:
>>>> I have an Acer Aspire A315-58 laptop[0], which, according to lspci has the following intel wireless chip:
>>>>
>>>>    Device:	00:14.3
>>>>     Class:	Network controller [0280]
>>>>    Vendor:	Intel Corporation [8086]
>>>>    Device:	Wi-Fi 6 AX201 [a0f0]
>>>>   SVendor:	Intel Corporation [8086]
>>>>   SDevice:	Wi-Fi 6 AX201 [0244]
>>>>       Rev:	20
>>>>    ProgIf:	00
>>>>    Driver:	iwlwifi
>>>>    Module:	iwlwifi
>>>>
>>>> However, in the kernel message buffer, the following message is written:
>>>>
>>>>   [    3.633490] iwlwifi 0000:00:14.3: Detected Intel(R) Wi-Fi 6 AX101, REV=0x351

Gregory who is CCed since the start of the thread might care to look
into this. According to a quick search lspci is right, but this needs
expects. Maybe it's just a cosmetic problem.

>>> [...]
>>> For the record, I have done a git-bisect[1], and that turned up
>>>   d2ccc5c1526396aef5196e4dd2ec8538994e5072
>>>
>>> as the first good commit[0].
>>>
>>> Sadly, that patch (or even the series) does not appear to be easily backportable,
>>> so it seems likely that current stable kernels won't be able to support this device.
>>
>> Thx for bisecting.
>>
>> Thing is: 6.3 will be EOL in about two or three weeks anyway. And Arch
>> will likely switch to 6.4 (which works -- or did I get this wrong?)
>> within a week or two. Makes be wonder if it's the best solution for
>> everyone involved to not resolve this and move on.
> 
> Yes, 6.4 seems to work.

#regzbot inconclusive: unlikely to be fixed in 6.3 before EOL, but 6.4 works

> I mainly meant LTS releases.  Nonetheless, lspci
> and iwlwifi still disagree on what device it actually is.

Not sure if I properly understand this.

Is this broken in 6.1.y as well, but working in earlier kernels? Then it
needs a separate report.

Or do you mean the disagreement? Maybe mentioning Gregory's name above
will do the trick to make the Intel folks look into this.

Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)
--
Everything you wanna know about Linux kernel regression tracking:
https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/about/#tldr
If I did something stupid, please tell me, as explained on that page.