Bug 208071 - WIreless AC9560 using wrong regulatory information
Summary: WIreless AC9560 using wrong regulatory information
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Drivers
Classification: Unclassified
Component: network-wireless-intel (show other bugs)
Hardware: Intel Linux
: P1 normal
Assignee: Default virtual assignee for network-wireless-intel
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2020-06-04 22:12 UTC by Lars Weber
Modified: 2020-09-06 05:51 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Kernel Version: 5.7
Tree: Mainline
Regression: No


Attachments
Kernel log (85.39 KB, text/plain)
2020-06-04 22:12 UTC, Lars Weber
Details

Description Lars Weber 2020-06-04 22:12:51 UTC
Created attachment 289513 [details]
Kernel log

I have a laptop with an Intel AC 9560 card and live in Germany.
My home network uses 160Mhz wide channels, but my laptop only connects using 80Mhz bandwith while other devices uses 160Mhz.

I found out the issue lies in the regulatory information the device uses, because running the command "iw reg get" returns the following:

global
country DE: DFS-ETSI
	(2400 - 2483 @ 40), (N/A, 20), (N/A)
	(5150 - 5250 @ 80), (N/A, 23), (N/A), NO-OUTDOOR, AUTO-BW
	(5250 - 5350 @ 80), (N/A, 20), (0 ms), NO-OUTDOOR, DFS, AUTO-BW
	(5470 - 5725 @ 160), (N/A, 26), (0 ms), DFS
	(5725 - 5875 @ 80), (N/A, 13), (N/A)
	(57000 - 66000 @ 2160), (N/A, 40), (N/A)

phy#0 (self-managed)
country DE: DFS-UNSET
	(2402 - 2437 @ 40), (6, 22), (N/A), AUTO-BW, NO-HT40MINUS, NO-80MHZ, NO-160MHZ
	(2422 - 2462 @ 40), (6, 22), (N/A), AUTO-BW, NO-80MHZ, NO-160MHZ
	(2447 - 2482 @ 40), (6, 22), (N/A), AUTO-BW, NO-HT40PLUS, NO-80MHZ, NO-160MHZ
	(5170 - 5190 @ 80), (6, 22), (N/A), NO-OUTDOOR, AUTO-BW, IR-CONCURRENT, NO-HT40MINUS, NO-160MHZ, PASSIVE-SCAN
	(5190 - 5210 @ 80), (6, 22), (N/A), NO-OUTDOOR, AUTO-BW, IR-CONCURRENT, NO-HT40PLUS, NO-160MHZ, PASSIVE-SCAN
	(5210 - 5230 @ 80), (6, 22), (N/A), NO-OUTDOOR, AUTO-BW, IR-CONCURRENT, NO-HT40MINUS, NO-160MHZ, PASSIVE-SCAN
	(5230 - 5250 @ 80), (6, 22), (N/A), NO-OUTDOOR, AUTO-BW, IR-CONCURRENT, NO-HT40PLUS, NO-160MHZ, PASSIVE-SCAN
	(5250 - 5270 @ 80), (6, 22), (0 ms), DFS, AUTO-BW, NO-HT40MINUS, NO-160MHZ, PASSIVE-SCAN
	(5270 - 5290 @ 80), (6, 22), (0 ms), DFS, AUTO-BW, NO-HT40PLUS, NO-160MHZ, PASSIVE-SCAN
	(5290 - 5310 @ 80), (6, 22), (0 ms), DFS, AUTO-BW, NO-HT40MINUS, NO-160MHZ, PASSIVE-SCAN
	(5310 - 5330 @ 80), (6, 22), (0 ms), DFS, AUTO-BW, NO-HT40PLUS, NO-160MHZ, PASSIVE-SCAN
	(5490 - 5510 @ 80), (6, 22), (0 ms), DFS, AUTO-BW, NO-HT40MINUS, NO-160MHZ, PASSIVE-SCAN
	(5510 - 5530 @ 80), (6, 22), (0 ms), DFS, AUTO-BW, NO-HT40PLUS, NO-160MHZ, PASSIVE-SCAN
	(5530 - 5550 @ 80), (6, 22), (0 ms), DFS, AUTO-BW, NO-HT40MINUS, NO-160MHZ, PASSIVE-SCAN
	(5550 - 5570 @ 80), (6, 22), (0 ms), DFS, AUTO-BW, NO-HT40PLUS, NO-160MHZ, PASSIVE-SCAN
	(5570 - 5590 @ 80), (6, 22), (0 ms), DFS, AUTO-BW, NO-HT40MINUS, NO-160MHZ, PASSIVE-SCAN
	(5590 - 5610 @ 80), (6, 22), (0 ms), DFS, AUTO-BW, NO-HT40PLUS, NO-160MHZ, PASSIVE-SCAN
	(5610 - 5630 @ 80), (6, 22), (0 ms), DFS, AUTO-BW, NO-HT40MINUS, NO-160MHZ, PASSIVE-SCAN
	(5630 - 5650 @ 80), (6, 22), (0 ms), DFS, AUTO-BW, NO-HT40PLUS, NO-160MHZ, PASSIVE-SCAN
	(5650 - 5670 @ 80), (6, 22), (0 ms), DFS, AUTO-BW, NO-HT40MINUS, NO-160MHZ, PASSIVE-SCAN
	(5670 - 5690 @ 80), (6, 22), (0 ms), DFS, AUTO-BW, NO-HT40PLUS, NO-160MHZ, PASSIVE-SCAN
	(5690 - 5710 @ 80), (6, 22), (0 ms), DFS, AUTO-BW, NO-HT40MINUS, NO-160MHZ, PASSIVE-SCAN
	(5710 - 5730 @ 80), (6, 22), (0 ms), DFS, AUTO-BW, NO-HT40PLUS, NO-160MHZ, PASSIVE-SCAN
	(5735 - 5755 @ 80), (6, 22), (N/A), AUTO-BW, NO-HT40MINUS, NO-160MHZ
	(5755 - 5775 @ 80), (6, 22), (N/A), AUTO-BW, NO-HT40PLUS, NO-160MHZ
	(5775 - 5795 @ 80), (6, 22), (N/A), AUTO-BW, NO-HT40MINUS, NO-160MHZ
	(5795 - 5815 @ 80), (6, 22), (N/A), AUTO-BW, NO-HT40PLUS, NO-160MHZ
	(5815 - 5835 @ 20), (6, 22), (N/A), AUTO-BW, NO-HT40MINUS, NO-HT40PLUS, NO-80MHZ, NO-160MHZ

This shows that while the system is using the correct regulation allowing 160Mhz channels in most cases, the card uses a setting that always prohibits 160Mhz channels.
Since the flag "lar_disable" was removed some time ago and also shouldn't be used, I don't have an official way to fix this, since the device manages itself.
Also this isn't really an issue of lar since it correctly detects that I'm in Germany.
Rather the card itself has wrong or outdated regulatory information associated with Germany (and maybe other regions as well).
Comment 1 Brian Norris 2020-06-19 23:13:06 UTC
Oh no, Intel removed lar_disable? That's unfortunate :(

Unfortunately, without that, you're SoL, because this stuff is baked into the EEPROM I believe. You can wait around for an Intel developer to confirm/deny, but there's probably nothing to do here, unfortunately.
Comment 2 Lars Weber 2020-06-20 15:15:21 UTC
Yeah, they did it back in 5.4 because it caused issues and wasn't supposed to be used by endusers. But that led to some new issues when countries weren't correctly detected or as in my case the information on the device is wrong.

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