[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAD8Lp47CEnQmDEwGDLZPpUcSS0Azf1ZO2zeuffYyDtwga2+Dqw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 11:43:54 +0000
From: Daniel Drake <drake@...lessm.com>
To: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
Cc: Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@...onical.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
Linux USB Mailing List <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Bluetooth mailing list
<linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Leif Liddy <leif.linux@...il.com>,
Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "Bluetooth: btusb: fix QCA Rome suspend/resume"
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 07:00:07PM +0800, Kai-Heng Feng wrote:
> > This commit causes a regression on some QCA ROME chips. The USB device
> > reset happens in btusb_open(), hence firmware loading gets interrupted.
>
> Oh, did you really confirm that's the root of the problem? I was only
> hypothesizing, with some informed observation and code review; but I
> didn't fully convince myself. If so, that's interesting.
I have the same doubt. Can you explain how/why firmware uploading and
btusb_open() overlap, and how this is avoided with your patch?
If they do overlap, is that not a bug in the stack that should be fixed instead?
If the fix belongs in btusb and this BTUSB_RESET_RESUME thing really
is problematic, should it be totally removed instead?
Daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists