Bug 196109 - iwlwifi: ASSERT 1007
Summary: iwlwifi: ASSERT 1007
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 172431
Alias: None
Product: Drivers
Classification: Unclassified
Component: network-wireless (show other bugs)
Hardware: Intel Linux
: P1 normal
Assignee: DO NOT USE - assign "network-wireless-intel" component instead
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2017-06-18 04:38 UTC by Nathan Baker
Modified: 2017-06-18 05:46 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Kernel Version: 4.11.5-1-ARCH
Subsystem:
Regression: No
Bisected commit-id:


Attachments
Full error text from syslog (8.46 KB, text/plain)
2017-06-18 04:38 UTC, Nathan Baker
Details

Description Nathan Baker 2017-06-18 04:38:13 UTC
Created attachment 257059 [details]
Full error text from syslog

I'm on an Intel NUC system with an Intel 8260 Wireless controller.

My config:

> [nathan@nathanb-nuc ~/tmp] uname -a
> Linux nathanb-nuc 4.11.5-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Wed Jun 14 16:19:27 CEST 2017
> x86_64 GNU/Linux
> [nathan@nathanb-nuc ~/tmp] lspci | grep -i network
> 03:00.0 Network controller: Intel Corporation Wireless 8260 (rev 3a)
>[nathan@nathanb-nuc ~/tmp] lsmod | grep iwlwifi
> iwlwifi               192512  1 iwlmvm
> cfg80211              520192  3 iwlmvm,iwlwifi,mac80211

I am seeing this in the syslogs a lot:

> Jun 18 16:25:02 nathanb-nuc kernel: iwlwifi 0000:03:00.0: Microcode SW error
> detected.  Restarting 0x82000000.

(Full text as attachment)

Here are all the blobs I have:

> [nathan@nathanb-nuc ~/tmp] ls -l /lib/firmware | grep 8000
> -rw-r--r--  1 root root 1745176 May  5 18:32 iwlwifi-8000C-13.ucode
> -rw-r--r--  1 root root 2351636 May  5 18:32 iwlwifi-8000C-16.ucode
> -rw-r--r--  1 root root 2394060 May  5 18:32 iwlwifi-8000C-21.ucode
> -rw-r--r--  1 root root 2120860 May  5 18:32 iwlwifi-8000C-22.ucode
> -rw-r--r--  1 root root 2227284 May  5 18:32 iwlwifi-8000C-27.ucode

When this occurs I see a drop in throughput but the driver is able to carry on without manual restarting.
Comment 1 Emmanuel Grumbach 2017-06-18 05:02:05 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 172431 ***
Comment 2 Nathan Baker 2017-06-18 05:38:23 UTC
@Emmanuel Grumbach are you sure this is a dup? The error code is different and the behavior is different. How do you know this is the same root cause?
Comment 3 Emmanuel Grumbach 2017-06-18 05:46:28 UTC
same assert 1007.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.