Hi,
On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 12:56 AM Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Qualcomm Bluetooth controllers may not have been provisioned with a
> valid device address and instead end up using the default address
> 00:00:00:00:5a:ad.
>
> This address is now used to determine if a controller has a valid
> address or if one needs to be provided through devicetree or by user
> space before the controller can be used.
>
> It turns out that the WCN3991 controllers used in Chromium Trogdor
> machines use a different default address, 39:98:00:00:5a:ad, which also
> needs to be marked as invalid so that the correct address is fetched
> from the devicetree.
>
> Qualcomm has unfortunately not yet provided any answers as to whether
> the 39:98 encodes a hardware id and if there are other variants of the
> default address that needs to be handled by the driver.
>
> For now, add the Trogdor WCN3991 default address to the device address
> check to avoid having these controllers start with the default address
> instead of their assigned addresses.
>
> Fixes: 00567f70051a ("Bluetooth: qca: fix invalid device address check")
> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # 6.5
> Cc: Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Janaki Ramaiah Thota <quic_janathot@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/bluetooth/btqca.c | 5 ++++-
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
>
> Luiz and Doug,
>
> As the offending commit is now on its way into 6.9, let's just add the
> default address that the Trogdor machines uses to the address check.
>
> We can always amend this when/if Qualcomm provides some more details,
> or, in the worst case, when users report that they need to re-pair their
> Bluetooth gadgets if there are further variations of the default
> address.
I can confirm that this at least gets my boards using their proper BT
address. While I still wonder if this is the best strategy to go with,
I can agree that this is an expedient fix to land it and works:
Tested-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
We can continue discussion in response to your original patch [1] to
figure out if this is going to be our long term strategy or not.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240416091509.19995-1-johan+linaro@xxxxxxxxxx
