[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <26F3D10E-A72A-400D-BD07-1F4AFF109417@canonical.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 18:06:30 +0800
From: Kai Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@...onical.com>
To: Daniel Drake <drake@...lessm.com>
Cc: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
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 21 Dec 2017, at 7:43 PM, Daniel Drake <drake@...lessm.com> wrote:
>
> 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?
QCA ROME chip uploads its firmware inside btusb_open().
The behavior is like below:
- btusb_probe()
- btusb_open()
- btusb_suspend(), reset_resume gets set.
- btusb_open() again, hub resets the device, then the issue happens.
I didn’t dig really deep for the issue, I simply tried usb core quirks, it reset
the USB device before btusb_probe().
It might be that using the USB quirk only papers over the real issue.
> 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?
I think so. That’s why I need some insight from the original patch author.
Kai-Heng
>
> Daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists