linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] Bluetooth: hci

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CANFp7mX0tXmBdJOkBUbar6Niwv9D60Fo9CvAcUkEKZKLnt--hQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 13 Nov 2019 13:22:31 -0800
From:   Abhishek Pandit-Subedi <abhishekpandit@...omium.org>
To:     Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
Cc:     Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@...il.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org,
        Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] Bluetooth: hci_bcm: Support pcm params in dts

Hi Marcel,



On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 4:18 PM Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Abhishek,
>
> > BCM chips may require configuration of PCM to operate correctly and
> > there is a vendor specific HCI command to do this. Add support in the
> > hci_bcm driver to parse this from devicetree and configure the chip.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Abhishek Pandit-Subedi <abhishekpandit@...omium.org>
> > ---
> >
> > Changes in v4: None
> > Changes in v3: None
> > Changes in v2: None
> >
> > drivers/bluetooth/hci_bcm.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/bluetooth/hci_bcm.c b/drivers/bluetooth/hci_bcm.c
> > index 6134bff58748..4ee0b45be7e2 100644
> > --- a/drivers/bluetooth/hci_bcm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/bluetooth/hci_bcm.c
> > @@ -88,6 +88,8 @@ struct bcm_device_data {
> >  *    used to disable flow control during runtime suspend and system sleep
> >  * @is_suspended: whether flow control is currently disabled
> >  * @disallow_set_baudrate: don't allow set_baudrate
> > + * @has_pcm_params: whether PCM parameters need to be configured
> > + * @pcm_params: PCM and routing parameters
> >  */
> > struct bcm_device {
> >       /* Must be the first member, hci_serdev.c expects this. */
> > @@ -122,6 +124,9 @@ struct bcm_device {
> >       bool                    is_suspended;
> > #endif
> >       bool                    disallow_set_baudrate;
> > +
> > +     bool                            has_pcm_params;
> > +     struct bcm_set_pcm_int_params   pcm_params;
> > };
> >
> > /* generic bcm uart resources */
> > @@ -596,6 +601,16 @@ static int bcm_setup(struct hci_uart *hu)
> >                       host_set_baudrate(hu, speed);
> >       }
> >
> > +     /* PCM parameters if any*/
> > +     if (bcm->dev && bcm->dev->has_pcm_params) {
> > +             err = btbcm_set_pcm_int_params(hu->hdev, &bcm->dev->pcm_params);
> > +
> > +             if (err) {
> > +                     bt_dev_info(hu->hdev, "BCM: Set pcm params failed (%d)",
> > +                                 err);
> > +             }
> > +     }
> > +
> > finalize:
> >       release_firmware(fw);
> >
> > @@ -1132,7 +1147,24 @@ static int bcm_acpi_probe(struct bcm_device *dev)
> >
> > static int bcm_of_probe(struct bcm_device *bdev)
> > {
> > +     int err;
> > +
> >       device_property_read_u32(bdev->dev, "max-speed", &bdev->oper_speed);
> > +
> > +     err = device_property_read_u8(bdev->dev, "brcm,bt-sco-routing",
> > +                                   &bdev->pcm_params.routing);
> > +     if (!err)
> > +             bdev->has_pcm_params = true;
>
> I think in case of HCI as routing path, these should be using the default or zero values as defined by Broadcom.

I'm not sure what these default values should be. Wouldn't it be
reasonable to expect the user/developer to set the various brcm
parameters in device tree?
If unset, it's just 0.

>
> > +
> > +     device_property_read_u8(bdev->dev, "brcm,pcm-interface-rate",
> > +                             &bdev->pcm_params.rate);
> > +     device_property_read_u8(bdev->dev, "brcm,pcm-frame-type",
> > +                             &bdev->pcm_params.frame_sync);
> > +     device_property_read_u8(bdev->dev, "brcm,pcm-sync-mode",
> > +                             &bdev->pcm_params.sync_mode);
> > +     device_property_read_u8(bdev->dev, "brcm,pcm-clock-mode",
> > +                             &bdev->pcm_params.clock_mode);
> > +
>
> I would add some sanity checks here.
>
> Regards
>
> Marcel
>