linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] Bluetooth: btusb: Add support different nvm to distinguish different factory for WCN6855 controller

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 4 Aug 2021 16:45:50 +0200
From:   Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
To:     Zijun Hu <zijuhu@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@...il.com>,
        Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@...il.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        BlueZ <linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org>,
        MSM <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Balakrishna Godavarthi <bgodavar@...eaurora.org>,
        c-hbandi@...eaurora.org, Hemantg <hemantg@...eaurora.org>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
        Rocky Liao <rjliao@...eaurora.org>, tjiang@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] Bluetooth: btusb: Add support different nvm to
 distinguish different factory for WCN6855 controller

Hi Zijun,

> we have different factory to produce wcn6855 soc chip, so we should use
> different nvm file with surfix to distinguish them.

I think you mean suffix and not surfix.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Tim Jiang <tjiang@...eaurora.org>
> ---
> drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c b/drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c
> index b1a05bb9f4bf..cc9618575ab4 100644
> --- a/drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c
> +++ b/drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c
> @@ -4013,6 +4013,9 @@ static int btusb_set_bdaddr_wcn6855(struct hci_dev *hdev,
> #define QCA_DFU_TIMEOUT		3000
> #define QCA_FLAG_MULTI_NVM      0x80
> 
> +#define WCN6855_2_0_RAM_VERSION_GF 0x400c1200
> +#define WCN6855_2_1_RAM_VERSION_GF 0x400c1211
> +
> struct qca_version {
> 	__le32	rom_version;
> 	__le32	patch_version;
> @@ -4044,6 +4047,7 @@ static const struct qca_device_info qca_devices_table[] = {
> 	{ 0x00000302, 28, 4, 16 }, /* Rome 3.2 */
> 	{ 0x00130100, 40, 4, 16 }, /* WCN6855 1.0 */
> 	{ 0x00130200, 40, 4, 16 }, /* WCN6855 2.0 */
> +	{ 0x00130201, 40, 4, 16 }, /* WCN6855 2.1 */
> };
> 
> static int btusb_qca_send_vendor_req(struct usb_device *udev, u8 request,
> @@ -4209,12 +4213,28 @@ static int btusb_setup_qca_load_nvm(struct hci_dev *hdev,
> 	if (((ver->flag >> 8) & 0xff) == QCA_FLAG_MULTI_NVM) {
> 		/* if boardid equal 0, use default nvm without surfix */
> 		if (le16_to_cpu(ver->board_id) == 0x0) {
> -			snprintf(fwname, sizeof(fwname), "qca/nvm_usb_%08x.bin",
> -				 le32_to_cpu(ver->rom_version));
> +			/* if ram version is for gf factory, we should add surfix gf to
> +			 * distinguish with default one .
> +			 */
> +			if (ver->ram_version == WCN6855_2_0_RAM_VERSION_GF ||
> +					ver->ram_version == WCN6855_2_1_RAM_VERSION_GF) {

You need fix the coding style for multi-line if-clauses.

> +				snprintf(fwname, sizeof(fwname), "qca/nvm_usb_%08x_gf.bin",
> +					 le32_to_cpu(ver->rom_version));
> +			} else {
> +				snprintf(fwname, sizeof(fwname), "qca/nvm_usb_%08x.bin",
> +					 le32_to_cpu(ver->rom_version));
> +			}
> 		} else {
> -			snprintf(fwname, sizeof(fwname), "qca/nvm_usb_%08x_%04x.bin",
> -				le32_to_cpu(ver->rom_version),
> -				le16_to_cpu(ver->board_id));
> +			if (ver->ram_version == WCN6855_2_0_RAM_VERSION_GF ||
> +					ver->ram_version == WCN6855_2_1_RAM_VERSION_GF) {
> +				snprintf(fwname, sizeof(fwname), "qca/nvm_usb_%08x_gf_%04x.bin",
> +					le32_to_cpu(ver->rom_version),
> +					le16_to_cpu(ver->board_id));
> +			} else {
> +				snprintf(fwname, sizeof(fwname), "qca/nvm_usb_%08x_%04x.bin",
> +					le32_to_cpu(ver->rom_version),
> +					le16_to_cpu(ver->board_id));
> +			}
> 		}

That said, can you just sit down and re-think this code. I am pretty sure there will be another factory at some point and then this code becomes too complex. Check if you could use a table for this.

Regards

Marcel