Re: [PATCH v2] Bluetooth: btusb: Add Qualcomm Bluetooth SoC WCN6855 support

[Rocky Liao <rjliao@codeaurora.org>]

Hi Marcel,

在 2020-09-15 21:57，Marcel Holtmann 写道：
> Hi Rocky,
> 
>>>> This patch add support for WCN6855 i.e. patch and nvm download
>>>> support.
>>>> Signed-off-by: Rocky Liao <rjliao@codeaurora.org>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c | 50 
>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>>>> 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c b/drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c
>>>> index fe80588c7bd3..789e8d5e829e 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c
>>>> @@ -59,6 +59,7 @@ static struct usb_driver btusb_driver;
>>>> #define BTUSB_MEDIATEK		0x200000
>>>> #define BTUSB_WIDEBAND_SPEECH	0x400000
>>>> #define BTUSB_VALID_LE_STATES   0x800000
>>>> +#define BTUSB_QCA_WCN6855	0x1000000
>>>> static const struct usb_device_id btusb_table[] = {
>>>> 	/* Generic Bluetooth USB device */
>>>> @@ -273,6 +274,10 @@ static const struct usb_device_id 
>>>> blacklist_table[] = {
>>>> 	{ USB_DEVICE(0x13d3, 0x3496), .driver_info = BTUSB_QCA_ROME },
>>>> 	{ USB_DEVICE(0x13d3, 0x3501), .driver_info = BTUSB_QCA_ROME },
>>>> +	/* QCA WCN6855 chipset */
>>>> +	{ USB_DEVICE(0x0cf3, 0xe600), .driver_info = BTUSB_QCA_WCN6855 |
>>>> +						     BTUSB_WIDEBAND_SPEECH },
>>>> +
>>>> 	/* Broadcom BCM2035 */
>>>> 	{ USB_DEVICE(0x0a5c, 0x2009), .driver_info = BTUSB_BCM92035 },
>>>> 	{ USB_DEVICE(0x0a5c, 0x200a), .driver_info = BTUSB_WRONG_SCO_MTU },
>>>> @@ -3391,6 +3396,26 @@ static int btusb_set_bdaddr_ath3012(struct 
>>>> hci_dev *hdev,
>>>> 	return 0;
>>>> }
>>>> +static int btusb_set_bdaddr_wcn6855(struct hci_dev *hdev,
>>>> +				const bdaddr_t *bdaddr)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	struct sk_buff *skb;
>>>> +	u8 buf[6];
>>>> +	long ret;
>>>> +
>>>> +	memcpy(buf, bdaddr, sizeof(bdaddr_t));
>>>> +
>>>> +	skb = __hci_cmd_sync(hdev, 0xfc14, sizeof(buf), buf, 
>>>> HCI_INIT_TIMEOUT);
>>>> +	if (IS_ERR(skb)) {
>>>> +		ret = PTR_ERR(skb);
>>>> +		bt_dev_err(hdev, "Change address command failed (%ld)", ret);
>>>> +		return ret;
>>>> +	}
>>>> +	kfree_skb(skb);
>>>> +
>>>> +	return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> #define QCA_DFU_PACKET_LEN	4096
>>>> #define QCA_GET_TARGET_VERSION	0x09
>>>> @@ -3428,6 +3453,8 @@ static const struct qca_device_info 
>>>> qca_devices_table[] = {
>>>> 	{ 0x00000201, 28, 4, 18 }, /* Rome 2.1 */
>>>> 	{ 0x00000300, 28, 4, 18 }, /* Rome 3.0 */
>>>> 	{ 0x00000302, 28, 4, 18 }, /* Rome 3.2 */
>>>> +	{ 0x00130100, 40, 4, 18 }, /* WCN6855 1.0 */
>>>> +	{ 0x00130200, 40, 4, 18 }  /* WCN6855 2.0 */
>>>> };
>>>> static int btusb_qca_send_vendor_req(struct usb_device *udev, u8 
>>>> request,
>>>> @@ -3529,8 +3556,8 @@ static int 
>>>> btusb_setup_qca_load_rampatch(struct hci_dev *hdev,
>>>> {
>>>> 	struct qca_rampatch_version *rver;
>>>> 	const struct firmware *fw;
>>>> -	u32 ver_rom, ver_patch;
>>>> -	u16 rver_rom, rver_patch;
>>>> +	u32 ver_rom, ver_patch, rver_rom;
>>>> +	u16 rver_rom_low, rver_rom_high, rver_patch;
>>>> 	char fwname[64];
>>>> 	int err;
>>>> @@ -3549,9 +3576,16 @@ static int 
>>>> btusb_setup_qca_load_rampatch(struct hci_dev *hdev,
>>>> 	bt_dev_info(hdev, "using rampatch file: %s", fwname);
>>>> 	rver = (struct qca_rampatch_version *)(fw->data + 
>>>> info->ver_offset);
>>>> -	rver_rom = le16_to_cpu(rver->rom_version);
>>>> +	rver_rom_low = le16_to_cpu(rver->rom_version);
>>>> 	rver_patch = le16_to_cpu(rver->patch_version);
>>>> +	if (ver_rom & ~0xffffU) {
>>>> +		rver_rom_high = le16_to_cpu(*(__le16 *)(fw->data + 16));
>>>> +		rver_rom = le32_to_cpu(rver_rom_high << 16 | rver_rom_low);
>>>> +	} else {
>>>> +		rver_rom = (__force u32)rver_rom_low;
>>>> +	}
>>>> +
>>> I don’t get this. Is anything wrong with get_unaligned_le32 etc.?
>>> My brain just hurts with your casting and pointer magic. Maybe the
>>> whole rver logic needs a clean up first.
>> It's not a 4 bytes le data, for example the version stream is 0x13, 
>> 0x00, 0x00, 0x01 and we need to convert it to 0x00130100. So we have 
>> to convert it to 2 u16 value then combine them to a u32.
> 
> what is it then? Is it big endian formatted. If it is not a 32-bit
> value, then don’t store it as one.
> 
OK, let me refine the patch to a more readable format.

> Regards
> 
> Marcel