> On 14-Nov-2023, at 3:15 PM, Hector Martin <marcan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 14/11/2023 18.03, Aditya Garg wrote: >> >> >>>> On 14-Nov-2023, at 1:28 PM, Hector Martin <marcan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> On 14/11/2023 15.59, Hector Martin wrote: >>>> On 14/11/2023 15.23, Aditya Garg wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 14-Nov-2023, at 5:01 AM, Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 08:57:35PM +0000, Aditya Garg wrote: >>>>>>> Starting from kernel 6.5, a regression in the kernel is causing Bluetooth to not work on T2 Macs with BCM4377 chip. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Journalctl of kernel 6.4.8 which has Bluetooth working is given here: https://pastebin.com/u9U3kbFJ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Journalctl of kernel 6.5.2, which has Bluetooth broken is given here: https://pastebin.com/aVHNFMRs >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also, the bug hasn’t been fixed even in 6.6.1, as reported by users. >>>>>> >>>>>> Can you bisect this regression please? >>>>> >>>>> Since I don't have access to this hardware, it's not possible for me to bisect this regression. Let's hope someone is able to do so though. >>>> >>>> It's not a regression, it was always broken. I'm sending a patch. >>>> >>>> - Hector >>> >>> You are quite likely conflating two problems. The ubsan issue you quoted >>> was always there and the patch I just sent fixes it, but it almost >>> certainly always worked fine in practice without ubsan. >>> >>> The Bluetooth problem you are referring to is likely *specific to >>> Bluetooth LE devices* and the regression was introduced by 288c90224e >>> and fixed by 41e9cdea9c, which is also in 6.5.11 and 6.6.1. >>> >>> If Bluetooth is broken in *some other way* in 6.6.1 then we need a >>> proper report or a bisect. Your logs don't show any issues other than >>> the ubsan noise, which is not a regression. >>> >>> - Hector >>> >> >> UBSAN noise seems to be fixed, Bluetooth not working though >> >> https://pastebin.com/HeVvMVk4 >> >> Ill try setting .broken_le_coded = true, > > Now you have a probe timeout, which you didn't have before. That's a > different problem. > > Please try this commit and see if it helps: > > https://github.com/AsahiLinux/linux/commit/8ec770b4f78fc14629705206e2db54d9d6439686 > > If it's this then it's still not a regression, it's probably just random > chance since I think the old timeout value was borderline for the older > chips. > > - Hector > Alright, I'll get it tested.
