Hi Andre, On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 09:20:35AM +0100, Andre Heider wrote: > Hi, > > when passing both addresses through device-tree in the same way: > $ hexdump /proc/device-tree/soc/ethernet@5020000/local-mac-address > 0000000 0702 3d96 53d4 > > $ hexdump /proc/device-tree/soc/serial@5000400/bluetooth/local-bd-address > 0000000 0703 3d96 53d4 > > I get this for eth (which is consistent with u-boot): > link/ether 02:07:96:3d:d4:53 > > But for bt it's in reverse order: > Controller 53:D4:3D:96:07:03 > > Is this intended? Kind of. In both cases the address is specified in the binary format used by BT/NW stack. When BT addresses are printed they are converted from LSB to MSB. > Do I really have to pass the bdaddr from u-boot in another way? One could make a case that we don't care what the 'internal' format is and that the BD_ADDR should be specified in MSB format in the DT, and the kernel would be in charge of converting it to LSB. However I fear it is too late to consider a change at this point, since the binding has been in the kernel for 6 months with the current format and existing devices may rely on it.
