On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 at 14:17, Wren Turkal <wt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 4/24/24 4:56 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 1:53 PM Wren Turkal <wt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 4/24/24 4:16 AM, Wren Turkal wrote:
> >>> On 4/24/24 2:04 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 07:07:05 +0200, Wren Turkal<wt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> said:
> >>>>> On 4/22/24 6:00 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> >>>>>> From: Bartosz Golaszewski<bartosz.golaszewski@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Any return value from gpiod_get_optional() other than a pointer to a
> >>>>>> GPIO descriptor or a NULL-pointer is an error and the driver should
> >>>>>> abort probing. That being said: commit 56d074d26c58 ("Bluetooth:
> >>>>>> hci_qca:
> >>>>>> don't use IS_ERR_OR_NULL() with gpiod_get_optional()") no longer sets
> >>>>>> power_ctrl_enabled on NULL-pointer returned by
> >>>>>> devm_gpiod_get_optional(). Restore this behavior but bail-out on
> >>>>>> errors.
> >>>>> Nack. This patch does fixes neither the disable/re-enable problem nor
> >>>>> the warm boot problem.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Zijun replied to this patch also with what I think is the proper
> >>>>> reasoning for why it doesn't fix my setup.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Indeed, I only addressed a single issue here and not the code under the
> >>>> default: label of the switch case. Sorry.
> >>>>
> >>>> Could you give the following diff a try?
> >>>
> >>> I had a feeling that was what was going on. I'll give the patch a shot.
> >>>
> >>> wt
> >>
> >> Considering this patch is basically equivalent to patch 1/2 from Zijun,
> >> I am not surprised that is works similarly. I.e. on a cold boot, I can
> >> disable/re-enable bluetooth as many time as I want.
> >>
> >
> > Zijun didn't bail out on errors which is the issue the original patch
> > tried to address and this one preserves.
> >
> >> However, since this patch doesn't include the quirk fix from Zijun's
> >> patchset (patch 2/2), bluetooth fails to work after a warm boot.
> >>
> >
> > That's OK, we have the first part right. Let's now see if we can reuse
> > patch 2/2 from Zijun.
>
> I'm compiling it right now. Be back soon.
>
Well I doubt it's correct as it removed Krzysztof's fix which looks
right. If I were to guess I'd say we need some mix of both.
Bart
> >> @Zijun, this patch looks more idiomatic when I look at the surrounding
> >> code than your patch 1/2. Notice how it doesn't use the "else if"
> >> construct. It does the NULL test separately after checking for errors.
> >>
> >> --
> >> You're more amazing than you think!
> >
> > Bart
>
> --
> You're more amazing than you think!
