linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] Bluetooth: hci_qca: Add qca_power_on() API to support both wcn399x and Rome power up

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <24228a5c46c0fc811735e48b1efdcb4f@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Thu, 09 Jan 2020 11:37:15 +0800
From:   Rocky Liao <rjliao@...eaurora.org>
To:     Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
Cc:     marcel@...tmann.org, johan.hedberg@...il.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-bluetooth-owner@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] Bluetooth: hci_qca: Add qca_power_on() API to
 support both wcn399x and Rome power up

在 2020-01-09 11:22，Rocky Liao 写道：
> Hi Matt,
> 
> 在 2020-01-09 02:34，Matthias Kaehlcke 写道：
>> Hi Rocky,
>> 
>> On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 05:08:02PM +0800, Rocky Liao wrote:
>>> This patch adds a unified API qca_power_on() to support both wcn399x 
>>> and
>>> Rome power on. For wcn399x it calls the qca_wcn3990_init() to init 
>>> the
>>> regulators, and for Rome it pulls up the bt_en GPIO to power up the 
>>> btsoc.
>>> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Rocky Liao <rjliao@...eaurora.org>
>>> ---
>>> 
>>> Changes in v2: None
>>> 
>>>  drivers/bluetooth/hci_qca.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
>>> 
>>> diff --git a/drivers/bluetooth/hci_qca.c 
>>> b/drivers/bluetooth/hci_qca.c
>>> index 9392cc7f9908..f6555bd1adbc 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/bluetooth/hci_qca.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/bluetooth/hci_qca.c
>>> @@ -1532,6 +1532,27 @@ static int qca_wcn3990_init(struct hci_uart 
>>> *hu)
>>>  	return 0;
>>>  }
>>> 
>>> +static int qca_power_on(struct hci_dev *hdev)
>>> +{
>>> +	struct hci_uart *hu = hci_get_drvdata(hdev);
>>> +	enum qca_btsoc_type soc_type = qca_soc_type(hu);
>>> +	struct qca_serdev *qcadev;
>>> +	int ret = 0;
>>> +
>>> +	if (qca_is_wcn399x(soc_type)) {
>> 
>> Why not include the qca_regulator_enable() call from qca_open() here?
>> It is clearly part of power on.
>> 
> OK
> 
qca_wcn3990_init() already have the qca_regulator_enable() call, so we 
just
need to remove it from qca_open().

>>> +		ret = qca_wcn3990_init(hu);
>>> +	} else {
>>> +		if (hu->serdev) {
>> 
>> nit: you could save a level of indentation (and IMO improve
>> readability) by doing:
>> 
>>      	       if (!hu->serdev)
>> 	            	return 0;
>> 
> OK
> 
>>> +			qcadev = serdev_device_get_drvdata(hu->serdev);
>>> +			gpiod_set_value_cansleep(qcadev->bt_en, 1);
>>> +			/* Controller needs time to bootup. */
>>> +			msleep(150);
>>> +		}
>>> +	}
>>> +
>>> +	return ret;
>>> +}
>>> +
>> 
>> I think common practice would be to combine the 3 patches of this 
>> series
>> into one. The new function doesn't really add any new functionality, 
>> but
>> is a refactoring. This is more evident if you see in a single diff 
>> that
>> the pieces in qca_power_on() are removed elsewhere.
> OK