RE: [PATCH] Bluetooth: btusb: Add Qualcomm Atheros AR3006 in blacklist_table

[Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>]

Hi Costa,

> > > Signed-off-by: Costa Yao <cqyao@qca.qualcomm.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c |    5 ++++-
> > >  1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c b/drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c
> > > index 39dd65c..94124ad 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c
> > > @@ -55,6 +55,7 @@ static struct usb_driver btusb_driver;
> > >  #define BTUSB_BROKEN_ISOC	0x20
> > >  #define BTUSB_WRONG_SCO_MTU	0x40
> > >  #define BTUSB_ATH3012		0x80
> > > +#define BTUSB_ATH3006		0x0100
> > >
> > >  static struct usb_device_id btusb_table[] = {
> > >  	/* Bluetooth USB interface */
> > > @@ -125,6 +126,7 @@ static struct usb_device_id blacklist_table[] = {
> > >
> > >  	/* Atheros 3012 with sflash firmware */
> > >  	{ USB_DEVICE(0x0cf3, 0x3004), .driver_info = BTUSB_ATH3012 },
> > > +	{ USB_DEVICE(0x0cf3, 0x3006), .driver_info = BTUSB_ATH3006 },
> > >
> > >  	/* Atheros AR5BBU12 with sflash firmware */
> > >  	{ USB_DEVICE(0x0489, 0xe02c), .driver_info = BTUSB_IGNORE }, @@
> > > -937,7 +939,8 @@ static int btusb_probe(struct usb_interface *intf,
> > >  	if (ignore_sniffer && id->driver_info & BTUSB_SNIFFER)
> > >  		return -ENODEV;
> > >
> > > -	if (id->driver_info & BTUSB_ATH3012) {
> > > +	if ((id->driver_info & BTUSB_ATH3012) ||
> > > +				(id->driver_info & BTUSB_ATH3006)) {
> > >  		struct usb_device *udev = interface_to_usbdev(intf);
> > >
> > >  		/* Old firmware would otherwise let ath3k driver load
> > 
> >         if (id->driver_info & BTUSB_ATH3012) {
> >                 struct usb_device *udev = interface_to_usbdev(intf);
> > 
> >                 /* Old firmware would otherwise let ath3k driver load
> >                  * patch and sysconfig files */
> >                 if (le16_to_cpu(udev->descriptor.bcdDevice) <= 0x0001)
> >                         return -ENODEV;
> >         }
> > 
> > are you sure this is true for the 3006 as well? Otherwise just using the
> > BTUSB_IGNORE quirk to blacklist a device would be enough.
> > 
> I send this patch just for a 3012 chip, with PID 3006. Because we need to separate it with another 3012 chip(PID 3004).
> So we use BTUSB_ATH3012 for PID 3004 and BTUSB_ATH3006 for PID 3006.
> 
> And I am sure that we need use this quirk, not BTUSB_IGNORE. Because we need to check whether chip has been patched or not through bcdDevice value.

so you are telling me that you guys managed to screw up another set of
hardware with the same mess as the previous one.

Are you 100% sure you need the bcdDevice check for this generation of
hardware? Care to explain to me how that is suppose to work. And why you
are introducing a new quirk if the handling is exactly the same.

Regards

Marcel