Hi Matthias, >> 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. we used a different property name for reason. Even while BD_ADDR is allocated from an OUI space, it has nothing in common with a MAC address. Regards Marcel
