[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cdf043ef-b7d5-61f9-b8ea-7e75cb22485f@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 15:07:34 +0100
From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
Cc: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
"Gustavo F. Padovan" <gustavo@...ovan.org>,
Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@...il.com>,
Bluez mailing list <linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
Leif Liddy <leif.linux@...il.com>,
Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
Daniel Drake <drake@...lessm.com>,
Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@...onical.com>,
Matadeen Mishra <matadeen@....qualcomm.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Bluetooth: btusb: Restore QCA Rome suspend/resume fix
with a "rewritten" version
Hi,
On 27-02-18 03:29, Brian Norris wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 11:14 PM, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com> wrote:
>> On 23-02-18 04:12, Brian Norris wrote:
>>> Hmm? I'm not sure I completely follow here when you say "he was not
>>> hitting the firmware loading race". If things were functioning fine with
>>> system suspend (but not with autosuspend), then he's not seeing the
>>> controller (quoting commit fd865802c66b) "losing power during suspend".
>>
>>
>> He was running a kernel with the original "fd865802c66b Bluetooth: btusb:
>> fix QCA Rome suspend/resume" commit, which fixes regular suspend for
>> devices which are "losing power during suspend", but does nothing for
>> runtime-suspend.
>>
>> He ran tests both with and without runtime-pm enabled with that same kernel
>> and he needed to disable runtime-pm to get working bluetooth.
>
> Did he ever test with commit fd865802c66b reverted?
>
> My symptoms were exactly the same as you described. BT was broken as
> of v4.14 if I had runtime suspend enabled. Things were fine if I
> either (a) reverted the patch or (b) disabled runtime suspend. I
> obviously preferred (a), which is why I continued to complain :)
>
> Did your tester ever try (a)? If not, then I don't think you've really
> ensured that he really needed a "fixed" version; he may not have
> needed the patch at all.
>
> Or an alternative question: did that system work on an older Fedora
> release (and presumably an older kernel)? If so, then he probably also
> did not need that patch.
>
>>> So, that would suggest he could only be seeing the race (as I was), and
>>> that his machine does not deserve a RESET_RESUME quirk?
>>
>>
>> I hope my above answer helps to clarify why I believe the quirk is
>> necessary on his machine.
>
> I'm sorry, but no it doesn't. If anything, it suggests to me even more
> that it may not have been necessary.
Ok, I've started another test-kernel build for the reporter this time
without any quirks at all and I've asked him to test.
Regards,
Hans
Powered by blists - more mailing lists