Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] Bluetooth: add quirk for broken address properties

Konrad Dybcio
2024-03-19T16:16:49Z

On 3/19/24 17:10, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 8:29 AM Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> Some Bluetooth controllers lack persistent storage for the device
>> address and instead one can be provided by the boot firmware using the
>> 'local-bd-address' devicetree property.
>>
>> The Bluetooth devicetree bindings clearly states that the address should
>> be specified in little-endian order, but due to a long-standing bug in
>> the Qualcomm driver which reversed the address some boot firmware has
>> been providing the address in big-endian order instead.
>>
>> Add a new quirk that can be set on platforms with broken firmware and
>> use it to reverse the address when parsing the property so that the
>> underlying driver bug can be fixed.
>>
>> Fixes: 5c0a1001c8be ("Bluetooth: hci_qca: Add helper to set device address")
>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 5.1
>> Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>
>> ---
>> include/net/bluetooth/hci.h | 9 +++++++++
>> net/bluetooth/hci_sync.c | 5 ++++-
>> 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/net/bluetooth/hci.h b/include/net/bluetooth/hci.h
>> index bdee5d649cc6..191077d8d578 100644
>> --- a/include/net/bluetooth/hci.h
>> +++ b/include/net/bluetooth/hci.h
>> @@ -176,6 +176,15 @@ enum {
>> */
>> HCI_QUIRK_USE_BDADDR_PROPERTY,
>>
>> + /* When this quirk is set, the Bluetooth Device Address provided by
>> + * the 'local-bd-address' fwnode property is incorrectly specified in
>> + * big-endian order.
>> + *
>> + * This quirk can be set before hci_register_dev is called or
>> + * during the hdev->setup vendor callback.
>> + */
>> + HCI_QUIRK_BDADDR_PROPERTY_BROKEN,
>
> Like with the binding, I feel like
> "HCI_QUIRK_BDADDR_PROPERTY_BACKWARDS" or
> "HCI_QUIRK_BDADDR_PROPERTY_SWAPPED" would be more documenting but I
> don't feel strongly.

Yeah, I thought the same.. and the binding, perhaps could be generic,
as I have a strong suspicion Qualcomm is not the only vendor who
made such oopsies..

Konrad