Hi Tedd, >> This checks the firmware build number, week and year against the >> repective loaded version. If details are a match, skip the download >> process. >> >> Signed-off-by: Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.von.dentz@xxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> v2: Add patch that mover checks for operational mode after the version >> checking. >> v3: Fix not checking for operation mode before using btintel_read_boot_params >> since some models depend on that to contruct the fw filename. Also attempt to >> cleanup duplicated code. >> v4: Fix forwarding -EALREADY when firmware has already been loaded. >> v5: Fix not advancing fw_ptr. >> v6: Fix btusb_setup_intel_new_get_fw_name error checking for ddc. >> v7: Disable version checking for WsP/SfP. >> v8: Really disables version checking for WsP/SfP. >> v9: Reintroduce bootloader checks and add workaround for version checking when >> operation and version cannot be read. >> >> drivers/bluetooth/btintel.c | 106 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- >> drivers/bluetooth/btintel.h | 5 +- >> drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c | 18 +++++- >> drivers/bluetooth/hci_intel.c | 7 ++- >> 4 files changed, 109 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-) > > I ran a quick test the v9 with the devices what I have. > > Test cases are: > - cold boot - expect to downloading the firmware > - reboot - expect to no firmware downloading > - fw upgrade - expect to device reset and download new firmware > > Devices tests: > SfP, WsP, ThP, TyP > > Results: > ThP, TyP: All 3 test cases were passed. > SfP, WsP: fw upgrade case(#3) didn't work but it was known issue > - insufficient fw version information in the firmware file > > Tested-by: Tedd Ho-Jeong An <tedd.an@xxxxxxxxx> > Tested-by: Kiran K <kiran.k@xxxxxxxxx> so I should go ahead and apply these patches? Regards Marcel
