linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5] Bluetooth: btusb: Add support using different nvm for variant 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]

Message-ID: <YSfVm10e2Z6bIwfS@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 26 Aug 2021 10:55:39 -0700
From:   Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
To:     Zijun Hu <zijuhu@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     marcel@...tmann.org, johan.hedberg@...il.com, luiz.dentz@...il.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, bgodavar@...eaurora.org,
        c-hbandi@...eaurora.org, hemantg@...eaurora.org,
        rjliao@...eaurora.org, tjiang@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] Bluetooth: btusb: Add support using different nvm for
 variant WCN6855 controller

On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 02:12:00AM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 04:28:03PM +0800, Zijun Hu wrote:
> > From: Tim Jiang <tjiang@...eaurora.org>
> > 
> > we have variant wcn6855 soc chip from different foundries, so we should
> > use different nvm file with suffix to distinguish them.
> 
> Similar question as on v4: why is it necessary to know where a chip was
> manufactured? Is the hardware different? Should the FW behave differently
> for some reason (e.g. regulatory differences)?

Tim briefly responded in private, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to share it
publicly.

I still doubt whether the 'foundry' is the right way to split things, I'm
more inclined towards the concept of a 'variant', which is more flexible.

Anyway, I'll leave it to the maintainers, if they are happy with the foundry
thing I'm fine with it.