Hi Petri,
>> If the call to request_firmware() fails in btbcm_setup_patchram(),
>> the BCM chip will be operating with its default firmware.
>>
>> In this case, btbcm_setup_patchram() should not return immediately
>> but instead should skip to btbcm_check_bdaddr() and quirk setup.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Petri Gynther <pgynther@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c | 3 ++-
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c b/drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c
>> index 0b69794..7d82b1a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c
>> +++ b/drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c
>> @@ -467,7 +467,7 @@ int btbcm_setup_patchram(struct hci_dev *hdev)
>> err = request_firmware(&fw, fw_name, &hdev->dev);
>> if (err < 0) {
>> BT_INFO("%s: BCM: Patch %s not found", hdev->name, fw_name);
>> - return 0;
>> + goto check_bdaddr;
>> }
>>
>> btbcm_patchram(hdev, fw);
>> @@ -501,6 +501,7 @@ int btbcm_setup_patchram(struct hci_dev *hdev)
>> BT_INFO("%s: %s", hdev->name, (char *)(skb->data + 1));
>> kfree_skb(skb);
>>
>> +check_bdaddr:
>
> lets just call this label "done". I think using check_bdaddr might be a bit of misleading labeling here. Since we actually want it to run all success test including the duplicate filter setting.
actually I just did an inline edit of the patch to change the label name and applied the patch. There is really no point in you wasting time to respin it.
Regards
Marcel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bluetooth" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
