On 24/04/2024 11:39, quic_zijuhu wrote:
> 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?
What? Amount of noise coming with this constant ping and dispersed
discussions is really annoying.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
