On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 11:19 AM Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 2020-03-24 at 11:10 -0400, Alain Michaud wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 4:11 PM Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, 2020-03-23 at 19:48 +0100, Marcel Holtmann wrote: > > > > Hi Joe, > > > > > > Hello Marcel. > > > > > > > > > > This adds a bit mask of driver_info for Microsoft vendor extension and > > > > > > > indicates the support for Intel 9460/9560 and 9160/9260. See > > > > > > > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/bluetooth/ > > > > > > > microsoft-defined-bluetooth-hci-commands-and-events for more information > > > > > > > about the extension. This was verified with Intel ThunderPeak BT controller > > > > > > > where msft_vnd_ext_opcode is 0xFC1E. > > > > > [] > > > > > > > diff --git a/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h b/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h > > > > > [] > > > > > > > @@ -315,6 +315,10 @@ struct hci_dev { > > > > > > > __u8 ssp_debug_mode; > > > > > > > __u8 hw_error_code; > > > > > > > __u32 clock; > > > > > > > + __u16 msft_vnd_ext_opcode; > > > > > > > + __u64 msft_vnd_ext_features; > > > > > > > + __u8 msft_vnd_ext_evt_prefix_len; > > > > > > > + void *msft_vnd_ext_evt_prefix; > > > > > > > > > > msft is just another vendor. > > > > > > > > > > If there are to be vendor extensions, this should > > > > > likely use a blank line above and below and not > > > > > be prefixed with msft_ > > > > > > > > there are other vendors, but all of them are different. So this needs to be prefixed with msft_ actually. But I agree that having empty lines above and below makes it more readable. > > > > > > So struct hci_dev should become a clutter > > > of random vendor extensions? > > > > > > Perhaps there should instead be something like > > > an array of char at the end of the struct and > > > various vendor specific extensions could be > > > overlaid on that array or just add a void * > > > to whatever info that vendors require. > > I don't particularly like trailing buffers, but I agree we could > > possibly organize this a little better by with a struct. something > > like: > > > > struct msft_vnd_ext { > > bool supported; // <-- Clearly calls out if the > > extension is supported. > > __u16 msft_vnd_ext_opcode; // <-- Note that this also > > needs to be provided by the driver. I don't recommend we have this > > read from the hardware since we just cause an extra redirection that > > isn't necessary. Ideally, this should come from the usb_table const. > > __u64 msft_vnd_ext_features; > > __u8 msft_vnd_ext_evt_prefix_len; > > void *msft_vnd_ext_evt_prefix; > > }; > > > > And then simply add the struct msft_vnd_ext (and any others) to hci_dev. > > Or use an anonymous union That would also work, but would need to be an array of unions, perhaps following your original idea to have them be in a trailing array of unions since a controller may support more than one extension. This might be going overboard :) > > >
