On 4/24/2024 2:01 PM, quic_zijuhu wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>
>
Hi Krzysztof, bartosz.
do you have any concern for this patch serials?
