public inbox for linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
To: Janaki Ramaiah Thota <quic_janathot@quicinc.com>
Cc: Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@gmail.com>,
	Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
	Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>,
	Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>,
	linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	stable@vger.kernel.org, quic_mohamull@quicinc.com,
	quic_hbandi@quicinc.com, quic_anubhavg@quicinc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Bluetooth: qca: generalise device address check
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 15:07:25 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZjDtDRCHT3z-3nHh@hovoldconsulting.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9eebd77b-c070-4260-a979-9b97f14eb5b1@quicinc.com>

On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 06:22:26PM +0530, Janaki Ramaiah Thota wrote:
> On 4/30/2024 12:37 PM, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 01:31:53PM -0400, Luiz Augusto von Dentz wrote:

> >> Anyway the fact that firmware loading itself is programming a
> >> potentially duplicated address already seems wrong enough to me,
> >> either it shall leave it as 00... or set a valid address otherwise we
> >> always risk missing yet another duplicate address being introduced and
> >> then used over the air causing all sorts of problems for users.
> >>
> >> So to be clear, QCA firmware shall never attempt to flash anything
> >> other than 00:00:00:00:00:00 if you don't have a valid and unique
> >> identity address, so we can get rid of this table altogether.
> > 
> 
> Yes agree with this point.
> BD address should be treated as invalid if it is 00:00:00:00:00:00.

We all agree on that.

> NVM Tag 2: bd address is default BD address (other than 0), should be
> configured as valid address and as its not unique address and it will
> be same for all devices so mark it is configured but still allow
> user-space to change the address.

But here we disagree. A non-unique address is not a valid one as it will
cause collisions if you have more than one such controller.

I understand that this may be convenient/good enough for developers in
some cases, but this can hurt end users that do not realise why things
break.

And a developer can always configure an address manually or patch the
driver as needed for internal use.

Are there any other reasons that makes you want to keep the option to
configure the device address through NVM files? I'm assuming you're not
relying on patching NVM files to provision device-specific addresses
after installation on target?

Johan

  reply	other threads:[~2024-04-30 13:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-04-26 15:58 [PATCH] Bluetooth: qca: generalise device address check Johan Hovold
2024-04-26 17:23 ` Doug Anderson
2024-04-27  9:51   ` Johan Hovold
2024-04-29 10:04     ` Janaki Ramaiah Thota
2024-04-29 14:02       ` Johan Hovold
2024-04-29 14:06         ` Johan Hovold
2024-04-29 17:12         ` Luiz Augusto von Dentz
2024-04-29 17:31           ` Luiz Augusto von Dentz
2024-04-30  7:07             ` Johan Hovold
2024-04-30 12:52               ` Janaki Ramaiah Thota
2024-04-30 13:07                 ` Johan Hovold [this message]
2024-04-30 14:04                   ` Luiz Augusto von Dentz
2024-04-30 14:36                     ` Johan Hovold
2024-05-02  7:05                   ` Janaki Ramaiah Thota
2024-05-02 10:11                     ` Johan Hovold
2024-05-02 17:03                       ` Janaki Ramaiah Thota
2024-05-02 17:32                         ` Luiz Augusto von Dentz
2024-05-03  7:12                           ` Janaki Ramaiah Thota
2024-04-30 14:21     ` Luiz Augusto von Dentz
2024-04-30 14:38       ` Johan Hovold

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=ZjDtDRCHT3z-3nHh@hovoldconsulting.com \
    --to=johan@kernel.org \
    --cc=dianders@chromium.org \
    --cc=johan+linaro@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=luiz.dentz@gmail.com \
    --cc=marcel@holtmann.org \
    --cc=quic_anubhavg@quicinc.com \
    --cc=quic_hbandi@quicinc.com \
    --cc=quic_janathot@quicinc.com \
    --cc=quic_mohamull@quicinc.com \
    --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox