Hi Bala, > >>>> Thanks Johannes. This would be better option to change PID in firmware > >>>> as blacklisting 3002 might create problems for 3011 chipsets. > >>>> Will try and let you people know. > >>> The misbehaving 3002 needs to be blacklisted in btusb.c anyway. However > >>> after loading the firmware to 3002 device, it should change its PID to > >>> something else. > >>> > >>> I am still trying to figure out if this is one stage firmware loading or > >>> a two stage firmware loading. This is all pretty unclear and nobody has > >>> answered this clearly so far. > >> eeprom based 3011 chips comes up with PID 3000 giving control to DFU > >> driver [ath3k]. ath3k downloads the > >> firmware changing PID to 3002. Now btusb gets control. > >> > >> In sflash based devices to reduce windows suspend/resume time we had a > >> small firmware in flash which > >> enables the device to get detected as Generic Bluetooth USB device with > >> PID 3002. So control reaches btusb when device is plugged in, leaving > >> no option for us to load the actual firmware. > >> > >> Solution would be to blacklist 3002 in btusb, enable ath3k to get > >> control for both the devices, download the firmware and change PID to > >> 3003 so that control with come to btusb. > > so here is the thing that needs to be done. > > > > a) Get a firmware for PID 3000 devices that change the firmware to some > > other PID. Since 3003 is already in use as well, using 3004 or later is > > better approach. > > > > b) Blacklist PID 3002 in btusb.c. > > > > c) Handle special firmware loading case for PID 3002 sflash devices. If > > firmware is loaded changed to 3005 or other. > > > > And as a general note, I prefer that the PID after loading firmware is > > different if you don't happen to actually load the same firmware. > > > > So please sort out your USB PID assignment for Bluetooth in general. > > This seems to be a mess that is not thought through properly. > > > > > Thanks for your suggestion Marcel. > Can't we have same PID[3004 or later] for both the devices after loading > the firmware by ath3k? > We need two different firmware if we plan to have two different PIDs for > these two bluetooth devices. if it loads the same firmware into the device, then it is just fine to share a PID. If it loads different firmware, then I would propose different PIDs. So yes, you can use the PID since you wanna keep the firmware the same. That is perfectly fine and reasonable. Regards Marcel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
