Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] Bluetooth: qca: Fix BT enable failure for QCA6390

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On 4/24/2024 10:19 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 at 16:08, Luiz Augusto von Dentz
> <luiz.dentz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi Bartosz,
>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 10:00 AM Bartosz Golaszewski
>> <bartosz.golaszewski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 at 15:53, quic_zijuhu <quic_zijuhu@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>> Please slow down here. Zijun's patch works and Bartosz's patch does not.
>>>>>>> I don't think Zijun means any ill intent. I am replying to Bartosz's
>>>>>>> patch right now.
>>>>>> Ok, that is great feedback, so I might be picking up the Zijun v7 set
>>>>>> if we don't find any major problems with it.
>>>>> Luiz,
>>>>> Please consider my alternative[1] also tested by Wren. Zijun's usage
>>>>> of GPIO API is wrong.
>>>> why is it wrong ?
>>> I have already told you that at least three times. But whatever, let
>>> me repeat again: gpiod_get_optional() returns NULL if the given GPIO
>>> is not assigned to the device in question OR a pointer to a valid GPIO
>>> descriptor. Anything else returned by it is an error and the driver
>>> must abort probe().
>> Ok, but there are other fixes on top of it:
>> I guess that could go in but it would really help if you guys could
>> work together so we don't have more competing solutions.
> These threads with their 7 patch versions from Zijun within 2 days or
> so have become very chaotic. Let me summarize: there are two
> regressions: one caused by my commit 6845667146a2 ("Bluetooth:
> hci_qca: Fix NULL vs IS_ERR_OR_NULL check in qca_serdev_probe") and a
> second caused by Krzysztof's commit 272970be3dab ("Bluetooth: hci_qca:
> Fix driver shutdown on closed serdev"). The patch I linked here is how
> I propose to fix my regression only. These fixes don't seem to
> conflict with one another.
it is not conflict issue, from my perspective, you fix are wrong.
do you see my patch change log?

> We (Krzysztof and I) have provided feedback to Zijun but he refused to
> address it and instead kept on resending his patches every couple
> hours. Zijun's patch 1/2 proposed to revert my commit 6845667146a2. I
> disagreed and proposed a way forward by fixing the regression. This
> fix was incorrect as pointed out by Wren, so I submitted v2 which
> works.
v2 is not right from my point as i commented with your solution.

you don't answer my questions commented within your solution.

what is your question i don't answer?

> Bartosz

[Index of Archives]     [Bluez Devel]     [Linux Wireless Networking]     [Linux Wireless Personal Area Networking]     [Linux ATH6KL]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Media Drivers]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Big List of Linux Books]

  Powered by Linux