From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AB97C43219 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 15:08:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62F1821734 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 15:08:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=gerhold.net header.i=@gerhold.net header.b="cOkggsWs" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726915AbfD3PIT (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Apr 2019 11:08:19 -0400 Received: from mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de ([81.169.146.217]:14865 "EHLO mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726050AbfD3PIS (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Apr 2019 11:08:18 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1556636896; s=strato-dkim-0002; d=gerhold.net; h=In-Reply-To:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date: X-RZG-CLASS-ID:X-RZG-AUTH:From:Subject:Sender; bh=rfOSW7kFy1K4hs8GGHboqP2vTbwLIlmzqd+wayFLZZQ=; b=cOkggsWsCaCBx06Zw037bpzmUUUzGUvNt9s1JapLRCSmAXf/CtACEbW56tJVEV5BOW PHjd0ECyJxssIAju2AQjZMJylh0A4pAWkcFQdCLseHUvdnBehWpf18bhi3xxeCHU/AGH WAK8rhLqiemGQvSwi2buXmgYD7pzymdCYoXde+tkD9xI4ADvczT/riIkIeN0DAztxzkT N/NoWSPXQLAzTWacS6N6TKC/ziCBwewpfu12gOrqzgYX76SUzZueBBp1TIH1hskEDAA6 wNAMO+PUu7WbHFx2cYxHjaDyHCkE0JXxWX8RFLBUVwFTeCMLMZVD86H8u3ayvUHD5uEA SiCA== X-RZG-AUTH: ":P3gBZUipdd93FF5ZZvYFPugejmSTVR2nRPhVOQ/OcYgojyw4j34+u266EZF6ORJL3vVgtqsm" X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo00 Received: from gerhold.net by smtp.strato.de (RZmta 44.18 AUTH) with ESMTPSA id 50b061v3UF59XmP (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (curve secp521r1 with 521 ECDH bits, eq. 15360 bits RSA)) (Client did not present a certificate); Tue, 30 Apr 2019 17:05:09 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 17:04:56 +0200 From: Stephan Gerhold To: Marcel Holtmann , Johan Hedberg Cc: linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Bluetooth: btbcm: Add default address for BCM2076B1 Message-ID: <20190430150456.GA50466@gerhold.net> References: <20190305130901.56660-1-stephan@gerhold.net> <20190305130901.56660-2-stephan@gerhold.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190305130901.56660-2-stephan@gerhold.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.4 (2019-03-13) Sender: linux-bluetooth-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org Hi Marcel, Hi Johan, On Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 02:09:01PM +0100, Stephan Gerhold wrote: > BCM2076B1 appears to use 20:76:A0:00:56:79 as default address. > This address is used by at least 5 devices with the AMPAK AP6476 > module and is also suspicious because it starts with the chip name > 2076 (followed by a different revision A0 for some reason). > > Add it to the list of default addresses and leave it up to the > user to configure a valid one. > > Signed-off-by: Stephan Gerhold > --- > drivers/bluetooth/btbcm.c | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > As far as I can tell, you have applied the first patch of this series, but forgot about this one. :) It does not apply as-is anymore since you applied the patch from Ferry Toth first, but it still applies cleanly with with "git am --3way". Is that fine for you or should I re-send it on top of latest bluetooth-next? Thanks, Stephan