[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <2A714E81-3DF7-44D9-87B4-1D915CB3155D@holtmann.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 16:27:22 +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>,
linux-bluetooth <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 v9] Bluetooth: btusb: Add support using different nvm for
variant WCN6855 controller
Hi Zijun,
> the RF performance of wcn6855 soc chip from different foundries will be
> difference, so we should use different nvm to configure them.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zijun Hu <zijuhu@...eaurora.org>
> ---
> drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c | 51 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c b/drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c
> index 928cbfa4c42d..7b23cfd131f6 100644
> --- a/drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c
> +++ b/drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c
> @@ -3161,6 +3161,9 @@ 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;
> @@ -3192,6 +3195,7 @@ 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,
> @@ -3346,6 +3350,31 @@ static int btusb_setup_qca_load_rampatch(struct hci_dev *hdev,
> return err;
> }
>
> +static void btusb_generate_qca_nvm_name(char *fwname,
> + size_t max_size,
> + struct qca_version *ver,
> + char *variant)
> +{
> + char *sep = (strlen(variant) == 0) ? "" : "_";
> + u16 board_id = le16_to_cpu(ver->board_id);
> + u32 rom_version = le32_to_cpu(ver->rom_version);
> +
> + if (((ver->flag >> 8) & 0xff) == QCA_FLAG_MULTI_NVM) {
> + /* if boardid equal 0, use default nvm without suffix */
> + if (board_id == 0x0) {
> + snprintf(fwname, max_size, "qca/nvm_usb_%08x%s%s.bin",
> + rom_version, sep, variant);
> + } else {
> + snprintf(fwname, max_size, "qca/nvm_usb_%08x%s%s_%04x.bin",
> + rom_version, sep, variant, board_id);
> + }
> + } else {
> + snprintf(fwname, max_size, "qca/nvm_usb_%08x.bin",
> + rom_version);
> + }
> +
> +}
> +
you have not addressed a single comment from Matthias.
> static int btusb_setup_qca_load_nvm(struct hci_dev *hdev,
> struct qca_version *ver,
> const struct qca_device_info *info)
> @@ -3354,19 +3383,15 @@ static int btusb_setup_qca_load_nvm(struct hci_dev *hdev,
> char fwname[64];
> int err;
>
> - 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));
> - } else {
> - snprintf(fwname, sizeof(fwname), "qca/nvm_usb_%08x_%04x.bin",
> - le32_to_cpu(ver->rom_version),
> - le16_to_cpu(ver->board_id));
> - }
> - } else {
> - snprintf(fwname, sizeof(fwname), "qca/nvm_usb_%08x.bin",
> - le32_to_cpu(ver->rom_version));
> + switch (ver->ram_version) {
> + case WCN6855_2_0_RAM_VERSION_GF:
> + case WCN6855_2_1_RAM_VERSION_GF:
> + btusb_generate_qca_nvm_name(fwname, sizeof(fwname), ver, "gf");
> + break;
> +
> + default:
> + btusb_generate_qca_nvm_name(fwname, sizeof(fwname), ver, "");
> + break;
And this indentation is still wrong. I have lost track how many times I mentioned it. I am not going to mention it anymore and I will not review this patch until review comments are actually addressed. It is a blind disrespect towards the maintainers and reviewers.
Regards
Marcel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists