On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 5:16 PM, Marcel Holtmann <marcel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
>
The patch applied to bluetooth-next looks good. Thanks.
--
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
