On 4/24/2024 1:49 PM, Wren Turkal wrote:
> On 4/23/24 10:46 PM, quic_zijuhu wrote:
>> On 4/24/2024 1:37 PM, Wren Turkal wrote:
>>> On 4/23/24 10:02 PM, quic_zijuhu wrote:
>>>> On 4/24/2024 12:30 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 24/04/2024 06:26, Zijun Hu wrote:
>>>>>> Commit 56d074d26c58 ("Bluetooth: hci_qca: don't use IS_ERR_OR_NULL()
>>>>>> with gpiod_get_optional()") will cause below serious regression
>>>>>> issue:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BT can't be enabled any more after below steps:
>>>>>> cold boot -> enable BT -> disable BT -> BT enable failure
>>>>>> if property enable-gpios is not configured within DT|ACPI for
>>>>>> QCA6390.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The commit wrongly changes flag @power_ctrl_enabled set logic for
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> case as shown by its below code applet and causes this serious issue.
>>>>>> qcadev->bt_en = devm_gpiod_get_optional(&serdev->dev, "enable",
>>>>>> GPIOD_OUT_LOW);
>>>>>> - if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(qcadev->bt_en)) {
>>>>>> + if (IS_ERR(qcadev->bt_en)) {
>>>>>> dev_warn(&serdev->dev, "failed to acquire enable gpio\n");
>>>>>> power_ctrl_enabled = false;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fixed by reverting the mentioned commit for QCA6390.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fixes: 56d074d26c58 ("Bluetooth: hci_qca: don't use IS_ERR_OR_NULL()
>>>>>> with gpiod_get_optional()")
>>>>>> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> Reported-by: Wren Turkal <wt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218726
>>>>>> Link:
>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-bluetooth/ea20bb9b-6b60-47fc-ae42-5eed918ad7b4@xxxxxxxxxxx/T/#m73d6a71d2f454bb03588c66f3ef7912274d37c6f
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Zijun Hu <quic_zijuhu@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> Tested-by: Wren Turkal <wt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> Changes:
>>>>>> V6 -> V7: Add stable tag
>>>>>
>>>>> Stop sending multiple pathchsets per day. I already asked you to first
>>>>> finish discussion and then send new version. You again start sending
>>>>> something while previous discussion is going.
>>>>> you concern is wrong and i am sure it don't block me sending new patch
>>>> sets to solve other issue. so i send this v7.
>>>>
>>>> i have give reply for Bartosz' patch.
>>>>
>>>> i hop you as DTS expert to notice my concern about DTS in the reply.
>>>
>>> Are you saying here (1) that you identified a problem in the DTs that
>>> you hope Krzysztof notices or (2) that you want Krzysztof to notice how
>>> your description of way that DT declares the gpio as required affects
>>> your proposed change. As a native American English speaker, I am finding
>>> your text hard to follow.
>>>
>> 1) is my purpose. i have given my concern about DTS for Bartosz' patch
>> and hope DTS expert notice the concern.
>>
>> my change don't have any such concern about DTS usage. that is why i
>> changed my fix from original reverting the whole wrong commit to now
>> focusing on QCA6390.
>
> Let me try to parse this. If #1 is the correct interpretation, does that
> mean that the DTs are wrong and need to be changed? Do you expect K to
> do that since he's the "DTS expert"?
>
for your 1) question, NO
for your 2) question, need DTS expert notice or suggest how to handle
case that a DTS property is marked as required but not be configed by user.
>>> I think you are saying #2.
>>>
>>> I just want to make sure I am following the discussion here.
>>>
>>> wt
>>
>
