Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Bluetooth: btusb: Restore QCA Rome suspend/resume fix with a "rewritten" version | From | Hans de Goede <> | Date | Tue, 27 Feb 2018 15:07:34 +0100 |
| |
Hi,
On 27-02-18 03:29, Brian Norris wrote: > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 11:14 PM, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote: >> On 23-02-18 04:12, Brian Norris wrote: >>> Hmm? I'm not sure I completely follow here when you say "he was not >>> hitting the firmware loading race". If things were functioning fine with >>> system suspend (but not with autosuspend), then he's not seeing the >>> controller (quoting commit fd865802c66b) "losing power during suspend". >> >> >> He was running a kernel with the original "fd865802c66b Bluetooth: btusb: >> fix QCA Rome suspend/resume" commit, which fixes regular suspend for >> devices which are "losing power during suspend", but does nothing for >> runtime-suspend. >> >> He ran tests both with and without runtime-pm enabled with that same kernel >> and he needed to disable runtime-pm to get working bluetooth. > > Did he ever test with commit fd865802c66b reverted? > > My symptoms were exactly the same as you described. BT was broken as > of v4.14 if I had runtime suspend enabled. Things were fine if I > either (a) reverted the patch or (b) disabled runtime suspend. I > obviously preferred (a), which is why I continued to complain :) > > Did your tester ever try (a)? If not, then I don't think you've really > ensured that he really needed a "fixed" version; he may not have > needed the patch at all. > > Or an alternative question: did that system work on an older Fedora > release (and presumably an older kernel)? If so, then he probably also > did not need that patch. > >>> So, that would suggest he could only be seeing the race (as I was), and >>> that his machine does not deserve a RESET_RESUME quirk? >> >> >> I hope my above answer helps to clarify why I believe the quirk is >> necessary on his machine. > > I'm sorry, but no it doesn't. If anything, it suggests to me even more > that it may not have been necessary.
Ok, I've started another test-kernel build for the reporter this time without any quirks at all and I've asked him to test.
Regards,
Hans
| |