Hi,
On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 9:00 AM Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The default device address apparently comes from the NVM configuration
> file and can differ quite a bit.
>
> Store the default address when parsing the configuration file and use it
> to determine whether the controller has been provisioned with an
> address.
>
> This makes sure that devices without a unique address start as
> unconfigured unless a valid address has been provided in the devicetree.
>
> Fixes: 00567f70051a ("Bluetooth: qca: fix invalid device address check")
> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # 6.5
> Cc: Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Janaki Ramaiah Thota <quic_janathot@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/bluetooth/btqca.c | 21 ++++++++++++---------
> drivers/bluetooth/btqca.h | 2 ++
> 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/bluetooth/btqca.c b/drivers/bluetooth/btqca.c
> index cfa71708397b..d7a6738e4691 100644
> --- a/drivers/bluetooth/btqca.c
> +++ b/drivers/bluetooth/btqca.c
> @@ -15,9 +15,6 @@
>
> #define VERSION "0.1"
>
> -#define QCA_BDADDR_DEFAULT (&(bdaddr_t) {{ 0xad, 0x5a, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00 }})
> -#define QCA_BDADDR_WCN3991 (&(bdaddr_t) {{ 0xad, 0x5a, 0x00, 0x00, 0x98, 0x39 }})
> -
> int qca_read_soc_version(struct hci_dev *hdev, struct qca_btsoc_version *ver,
> enum qca_btsoc_type soc_type)
> {
> @@ -351,6 +348,11 @@ static void qca_tlv_check_data(struct hci_dev *hdev,
>
> /* Update NVM tags as needed */
> switch (tag_id) {
> + case EDL_TAG_ID_BD_ADDR:
> + if (tag_len != sizeof(bdaddr_t))
> + break;
> + memcpy(&config->bdaddr, tlv_nvm->data, sizeof(bdaddr_t));
> + break;
> case EDL_TAG_ID_HCI:
nit: blank line after "break" ?
Also note that on my firmware I never see this tag and thus your patch
breaks trogdor. Specifically I put a printout here and it never gets
hit.
I printed all the tags/lengths:
[ 17.961087] DOUG: id 0xde02, len 0x0010
[ 17.965081] DOUG: id 0x0000, len 0x0000
[ 17.969050] DOUG: id 0x0000, len 0x0011
[ 17.973025] DOUG: id 0x0000, len 0x0a00
[ 17.976991] DOUG: id 0x0303, len 0x0303
[ 17.981066] DOUG: id 0x0033, len 0x1001
Probably EDL_TAG_ID_BD_ADDR should have been 0xde02, not just 2.
...but then the size is wrong? When I print out the bytes in ID 0xde02
I see the address you're looking for 4 bytes in...
[ 17.663602] DOUG: 0x00
[ 17.666132] DOUG: 0x00
[ 17.668638] DOUG: 0x00
[ 17.671237] DOUG: 0x00
[ 17.673689] DOUG: 0xad
[ 17.676120] DOUG: 0x5a
[ 17.678551] DOUG: 0x00
[ 17.680980] DOUG: 0x00
[ 17.683409] DOUG: 0x98
[ 17.685846] DOUG: 0x39
[ 17.688278] DOUG: 0x08
[ 17.690704] DOUG: 0x00
[ 17.693137] DOUG: 0x08
[ 17.693139] DOUG: 0x00
[ 17.693139] DOUG: 0x00
[ 17.693140] DOUG: 0x00
> @@ -624,6 +626,9 @@ static int qca_check_bdaddr(struct hci_dev *hdev)
> if (bacmp(&hdev->public_addr, BDADDR_ANY))
> return 0;
>
> + if (!bacmp(&config->bdaddr, BDADDR_ANY))
> + return 0;
The above test feels non-obvious enough to deserve a comment. Could
you add one? That would also help alleviate my confusion since I
_think_ your if test is unneeded and maybe wrong? Let's say that the
firmware didn't have a default address stored in it. It still seems
like we could try to read the address and then if the firmware gave
back BDADDR_ANY (0) we should set the `HCI_QUIRK_USE_BDADDR_PROPERTY`
property, right?
