Hi Paul,
Thanks for your comments.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Menzel <pmenzel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, March 1, 2024 4:38 PM
> To: K, Kiran <kiran.k@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: linux-bluetooth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Srivatsa, Ravishankar
> <ravishankar.srivatsa@xxxxxxxxx>; Tumkur Narayan, Chethan
> <chethan.tumkur.narayan@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] Bluetooth: btintel: Add support for downloading
> secondary boot loader image
>
> Dear Kiran,
>
>
> Thank you for your patch.
>
>
> Am 01.03.24 um 11:24 schrieb Kiran K:
> > Some variants of Intel controllers like BlazarI supports downloading
> > of
>
> support
>
> In the diff you write Blazar-I.
Ok. I will fix it in the next patch.
>
> > secondary bootloader. This patch adds the support to download
> > secondary boot loader image before downloading operational firmware
> image.
>
> What is the secondary bootloader needed for?
>
Primary bootloader is flashed over ROM and any issues found once the product released to market is hard / impossible to fix. So idea is to keep primary bootloader minimal and have secondary bootloader.
> > Signed-off-by: Kiran K <kiran.k@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > dmesg logs:
> > [ 16.537130] Bluetooth: Core ver 2.22
> > [ 16.537135] Bluetooth: Starting self testing
> > [ 16.540021] Bluetooth: ECDH test passed in 2818 usecs
> > [ 16.560666] Bluetooth: SMP test passed in 602 usecs
> > [ 16.560674] Bluetooth: Finished self testing
> > [ 16.560690] Bluetooth: HCI device and connection manager initialized
> > [ 16.560695] Bluetooth: HCI socket layer initialized
> > [ 16.560697] Bluetooth: L2CAP socket layer initialized
> > [ 16.560700] Bluetooth: SCO socket layer initialized
> > [ 16.571934] Bluetooth: hci0: Device revision is 0
> > [ 16.571940] Bluetooth: hci0: Secure boot is disabled
> > [ 16.571941] Bluetooth: hci0: OTP lock is disabled
> > [ 16.571942] Bluetooth: hci0: API lock is enabled
> > [ 16.571943] Bluetooth: hci0: Debug lock is disabled
> > [ 16.571943] Bluetooth: hci0: Minimum firmware build 1 week 10 2014
> > [ 16.571945] Bluetooth: hci0: Bootloader timestamp 2022.46 buildtype 1
> build 26590
> > [ 16.572189] Bluetooth: hci0: DSM reset method type: 0x00
> > [ 16.575002] Bluetooth: hci0: Found device firmware: intel/ibt-0090-0291-
> 02.sfi
> > [ 16.575007] Bluetooth: hci0: Boot Address: 0x30099000
> > [ 16.575008] Bluetooth: hci0: Firmware Version: 200-10.24
> > [ 16.705698] Bluetooth: hci0: Waiting for firmware download to complete
> > [ 16.705927] Bluetooth: hci0: Firmware loaded in 127852 usecs
>
> Unrelated, but this is quite long.
I can pass on this information to firmware. I feel this seems to be OK as the maximum timeout for firmware download is 5 seconds.
>
> > [ 16.705952] Bluetooth: hci0: Waiting for device to boot
> > [ 16.708519] Bluetooth: hci0: Device booted in 2522 usecs
> > [ 16.708538] Bluetooth: hci0: Malformed MSFT vendor event: 0x02
>
> (Unrelated, but this is shown on a lot of devices. One more time below.)
>
> > [ 16.710296] Bluetooth: hci0: No device address configured
> > [ 16.712483] Bluetooth: hci0: Found device firmware: intel/ibt-0090-
> 0291.sfi
> > [ 16.712497] Bluetooth: hci0: Boot Address: 0x10000800
> > [ 16.712498] Bluetooth: hci0: Firmware Version: 211-10.24
>
> It’s unclear from the logs, why two firmware files (with different
> versions) are loaded.
>
One is secondary bootloader (ibt-0090-0291-02.sfi) and the other one is operational firmware (ibt-0090-0291.sfi) . It's possible to have different version.
> > [ 16.930834] Bluetooth: BNEP (Ethernet Emulation) ver 1.3
> > [ 16.930840] Bluetooth: BNEP filters: protocol multicast
> > [ 16.930844] Bluetooth: BNEP socket layer initialized
> > [ 18.494137] Bluetooth: hci0: Waiting for firmware download to complete
> > [ 18.494897] Bluetooth: hci0: Firmware loaded in 1740634 usecs
>
> Hmm, 1.7 seconds is very long.
>
> > [ 18.494972] Bluetooth: hci0: Waiting for device to boot
> > [ 18.529089] Bluetooth: hci0: Device booted in 33371 usecs
> > [ 18.529121] Bluetooth: hci0: Malformed MSFT vendor event: 0x02
> > [ 18.529914] Bluetooth: hci0: Found Intel DDC parameters: intel/ibt-0090-
> 0291.ddc
> > [ 18.532158] Bluetooth: hci0: Applying Intel DDC parameters completed
> > [ 18.532582] Bluetooth: hci0: Found Intel DDC parameters:
> intel/bdaddress.cfg
> > [ 18.534109] Bluetooth: hci0: Applying Intel DDC parameters completed
> > [ 18.537170] Bluetooth: hci0: Firmware timestamp 2024.9 buildtype 0 build
> 58067
> > [ 18.537177] Bluetooth: hci0: Firmware SHA1: 0x81abf1ea
> > [ 18.540985] Bluetooth: hci0: Fseq status: Success (0x00)
> > [ 18.540992] Bluetooth: hci0: Fseq executed: 00.00.00.00
> > [ 18.540993] Bluetooth: hci0: Fseq BT Top: 00.00.00.00
> > [ 18.631360] Bluetooth: MGMT ver 1.22
> > [ 18.673023] Bluetooth: RFCOMM TTY layer initialized
> > [ 18.673031] Bluetooth: RFCOMM socket layer initialized
> > [ 18.673039] Bluetooth: RFCOMM ver 1.11
>
> Thank you for pasting this. It’d be great if you added it to the commit
> message, so above ---.
Ok. I will have it part of commit message.
>
> > drivers/bluetooth/btintel.c | 38
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/bluetooth/btintel.c b/drivers/bluetooth/btintel.c
> > index 6ba7f5d1b837..934aad89bbf1 100644
> > --- a/drivers/bluetooth/btintel.c
> > +++ b/drivers/bluetooth/btintel.c
> > @@ -521,6 +521,9 @@ static int btintel_version_info_tlv(struct hci_dev
> *hdev,
> > version->min_fw_build_nn, version-
> >min_fw_build_cw,
> > 2000 + version->min_fw_build_yy);
> > break;
> > + case 0x02:
> > + variant = "IML";
>
> What does IML mean?
>
> > + break;
> > case 0x03:
> > variant = "Firmware";
> > break;
> > @@ -2194,10 +2197,26 @@ static void btintel_get_fw_name_tlv(const
> struct intel_version_tlv *ver,
> > char *fw_name, size_t len,
> > const char *suffix)
> > {
> > + const char *format;
> > /* The firmware file name for new generation controllers will be
> > * ibt-<cnvi_top type+cnvi_top step>-<cnvr_top type+cnvr_top step>
> > */
> > - snprintf(fw_name, len, "intel/ibt-%04x-%04x.%s",
> > + switch (INTEL_HW_VARIANT(ver->cnvi_bt)) {
> > + /* Only Blazar-I (0x1e) product supports downloading of secondary
> boot
> > + * loader image
> > + */
> > + case 0x1e:
>
> Should a macro be defined for 0x1e?
>
> > + if (ver->img_type == 1)
>
> Below you write 0x0x. Should this be consistent?
>
> > + format = "intel/ibt-%04x-%04x-02.%s";
> > + else
> > + format = "intel/ibt-%04x-%04x.%s";
> > + break;
> > + default:
> > + format = "intel/ibt-%04x-%04x.%s";
> > + break;
> > + }
> > +
> > + snprintf(fw_name, len, format,
> > INTEL_CNVX_TOP_PACK_SWAB(INTEL_CNVX_TOP_TYPE(ver-
> >cnvi_top),
> > INTEL_CNVX_TOP_STEP(ver-
> >cnvi_top)),
> > INTEL_CNVX_TOP_PACK_SWAB(INTEL_CNVX_TOP_TYPE(ver-
> >cnvr_top),
> > @@ -2607,6 +2626,23 @@ static int btintel_bootloader_setup_tlv(struct
> hci_dev *hdev,
> > if (err)
> > return err;
> >
> > + err = btintel_read_version_tlv(hdev, ver);
> > + if (err)
> > + return err;
> > +
> > + /* If image type returned is 0x02, then controller supports secondary
> > + * boot loader image
> > + */
> > + if (ver->img_type == 0x02) {
>
> Could a macro be defined for 0x02?
>
> > + err = btintel_prepare_fw_download_tlv(hdev, ver,
> &boot_param);
> > + if (err)
> > + return err;
> > +
> > + err = btintel_boot(hdev, boot_param);
> > + if (err)
> > + return err;
> > + }
> > +
> > btintel_clear_flag(hdev, INTEL_BOOTLOADER);
> >
> > btintel_get_fw_name_tlv(ver, ddcname, sizeof(ddcname), "ddc");
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Paul
Thanks,
Kiran
