> On 16-Nov-2021, at 2:56 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 16.11.21 10:02, Orlando Chamberlain wrote: >>> Bluetooth maintainers, what's the status here? The proposed patch is >>> fixing a regression. It's not a recent one (it afaics was introduced in >>> v5.11-rc1). Nevertheless it would be good to get this finally resolved. >>> But this thread seems inactive for more than a week now. Or was progress >>> made, but is only visible somewhere else? >> >> I think the best solution is getting broadcom to update their firmware, >> I've just sent them a message through a form on their website, I couldn't >> seem to get it to tell me "Your message has been sent", so it's possible >> that it didn't submit (more likely I've sent the same message several times). >> >> If I hear back from them I'll send something here. > > Thx for that. But FWIW: from the point of the regression tracker that's > not the best solution, as according to your report this is a regression. > IOW: we deal with something that used to up to a certain kernel version > and was broken by a change to the kernel. That is something frown upon > in Linux kernel development, hence changes introducing regression are > often quickly reverted, if they can't get fixed by follow up change quickly. > > That sentence has two "quickly", as we want to prevent more people > running into the issue, resulting in a loss of trust. But that's what > will happen if we wait for a firmware update to get developed, tested, > published, and rolled out. And even then we can't expect users to have > the latest firmware installed when they switch to a new kernel. > > Hence the best solution *afaics* might be: fix this in the kernel > somehow now with a workaround; once the firmware update is out, change > the kernel again to only apply the workaround if the old firmware is in use. I have an idea. Can we make LE Read Transmit Power as a module parameter and users can turn it off if it is causing trouble. I have a patch for the same but haven't tested it yet. > > At least that's how it looks to me from the outside. But as mentioned > earlier already: as a Linux kernel regression tracker I'm getting a lot > of reports on my table. I can only look briefly into most of them. > Therefore I unfortunately will get things wrong or miss something > important. I hope that's not the case here; if you think it is, don't > hesitate to tell me about it in a public reply. That's in everyone's > interest, as what I wrote above might be misleading to everyone reading > this, which is something I'd like to avoid. > > Ciao, Thorsten (carrying his Linux kernel regression tracker hat)
