Hi Miao-chen, >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Miao-chen Chou <mcchou@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> --- >>>>> >>>>> Changes in v2: >>>>> - Define struct msft_vnd_ext and add a field of this type to struct >>>>> hci_dev to facilitate the support of Microsoft vendor extension. >>>>> >>>>> drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c | 14 ++++++++++++-- >>>>> include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h | 6 ++++++ >>>>> 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c b/drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c >>>>> index 3bdec42c9612..4c49f394f174 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c >>>>> @@ -58,6 +58,7 @@ static struct usb_driver btusb_driver; >>>>> #define BTUSB_CW6622 0x100000 >>>>> #define BTUSB_MEDIATEK 0x200000 >>>>> #define BTUSB_WIDEBAND_SPEECH 0x400000 >>>>> +#define BTUSB_MSFT_VND_EXT 0x800000 >>>>> >>>>> static const struct usb_device_id btusb_table[] = { >>>>> /* Generic Bluetooth USB device */ >>>>> @@ -335,7 +336,8 @@ static const struct usb_device_id blacklist_table[] = { >>>>> >>>>> /* Intel Bluetooth devices */ >>>>> { USB_DEVICE(0x8087, 0x0025), .driver_info = BTUSB_INTEL_NEW | >>>>> - BTUSB_WIDEBAND_SPEECH }, >>>>> + BTUSB_WIDEBAND_SPEECH | >>>>> + BTUSB_MSFT_VND_EXT }, >>>>> { USB_DEVICE(0x8087, 0x0026), .driver_info = BTUSB_INTEL_NEW | >>>>> BTUSB_WIDEBAND_SPEECH }, >>>>> { USB_DEVICE(0x8087, 0x0029), .driver_info = BTUSB_INTEL_NEW | >>>>> @@ -348,7 +350,8 @@ static const struct usb_device_id blacklist_table[] = { >>>>> { USB_DEVICE(0x8087, 0x0aa7), .driver_info = BTUSB_INTEL | >>>>> BTUSB_WIDEBAND_SPEECH }, >>>>> { USB_DEVICE(0x8087, 0x0aaa), .driver_info = BTUSB_INTEL_NEW | >>>>> - BTUSB_WIDEBAND_SPEECH }, >>>>> + BTUSB_WIDEBAND_SPEECH | >>>>> + BTUSB_MSFT_VND_EXT }, >>>>> >>>>> /* Other Intel Bluetooth devices */ >>>>> { USB_VENDOR_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(0x8087, 0xe0, 0x01, 0x01), >>>>> @@ -3734,6 +3737,8 @@ static int btusb_probe(struct usb_interface *intf, >>>>> hdev->send = btusb_send_frame; >>>>> hdev->notify = btusb_notify; >>>>> >>>>> + hdev->msft_ext.opcode = HCI_OP_NOP; >>>>> + >>>> >>>> do this in the hci_alloc_dev procedure for every driver. This doesn’t belong in the driver. >>> Thanks for the note, I will address this. >>>> >>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_PM >>>>> err = btusb_config_oob_wake(hdev); >>>>> if (err) >>>>> @@ -3800,6 +3805,11 @@ static int btusb_probe(struct usb_interface *intf, >>>>> set_bit(HCI_QUIRK_STRICT_DUPLICATE_FILTER, &hdev->quirks); >>>>> set_bit(HCI_QUIRK_SIMULTANEOUS_DISCOVERY, &hdev->quirks); >>>>> set_bit(HCI_QUIRK_NON_PERSISTENT_DIAG, &hdev->quirks); >>>>> + >>>>> + if (id->driver_info & BTUSB_MSFT_VND_EXT && >>>>> + (id->idProduct == 0x0025 || id->idProduct == 0x0aaa)) { >>>> >>>> Please scrap this extra check. You already selected out the PID with the blacklist_table. In addition, I do not want to add a PID in two places in the driver. >>> If we scrap the check around idProduct, how do we tell two controllers >>> apart if they use different opcode for Microsoft vendor extension? >> >> for Intel controllers this is highly unlikely. If we really decide to change the opcode in newer firmware versions, we then deal with it at that point. >> >> However for Intel controllers I have the feeling that we better do it after the Read the Intel version information and then do it based on hardware revision and firmware version. > I would agree with you given that the FW loaded for the same HW can > differ, and different FW version may have different configuration in > terms of the use of extensions. But it's not clear to me how we can > tell whether an extension is supported based on a version number. Is > there any implication on the support of an extension given a FW > version (e.g. any FW version greater than 10 would support MSFT > extension)? that is for us to figure out. I will get back to you on that. Regards Marcel
