lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/2] Bluetooth: btusb: Indicate Microsoft vendor extension for Intel 9460/9560 and 9160/9260
From
Date
Hi Miao-chen,

>>>>> This adds a bit mask of driver_info for Microsoft vendor extension and
>>>>> indicates the support for Intel 9460/9560 and 9160/9260. See
>>>>> https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/bluetooth/
>>>>> microsoft-defined-bluetooth-hci-commands-and-events for more information
>>>>> about the extension. This was verified with Intel ThunderPeak BT controller
>>>>> where msft_vnd_ext_opcode is 0xFC1E.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Miao-chen Chou <mcchou@chromium.org>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> Changes in v2:
>>>>> - Define struct msft_vnd_ext and add a field of this type to struct
>>>>> hci_dev to facilitate the support of Microsoft vendor extension.
>>>>>
>>>>> drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
>>>>> include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h | 6 ++++++
>>>>> 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c b/drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c
>>>>> index 3bdec42c9612..4c49f394f174 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c
>>>>> @@ -58,6 +58,7 @@ static struct usb_driver btusb_driver;
>>>>> #define BTUSB_CW6622 0x100000
>>>>> #define BTUSB_MEDIATEK 0x200000
>>>>> #define BTUSB_WIDEBAND_SPEECH 0x400000
>>>>> +#define BTUSB_MSFT_VND_EXT 0x800000
>>>>>
>>>>> static const struct usb_device_id btusb_table[] = {
>>>>> /* Generic Bluetooth USB device */
>>>>> @@ -335,7 +336,8 @@ static const struct usb_device_id blacklist_table[] = {
>>>>>
>>>>> /* Intel Bluetooth devices */
>>>>> { USB_DEVICE(0x8087, 0x0025), .driver_info = BTUSB_INTEL_NEW |
>>>>> - BTUSB_WIDEBAND_SPEECH },
>>>>> + BTUSB_WIDEBAND_SPEECH |
>>>>> + BTUSB_MSFT_VND_EXT },
>>>>> { USB_DEVICE(0x8087, 0x0026), .driver_info = BTUSB_INTEL_NEW |
>>>>> BTUSB_WIDEBAND_SPEECH },
>>>>> { USB_DEVICE(0x8087, 0x0029), .driver_info = BTUSB_INTEL_NEW |
>>>>> @@ -348,7 +350,8 @@ static const struct usb_device_id blacklist_table[] = {
>>>>> { USB_DEVICE(0x8087, 0x0aa7), .driver_info = BTUSB_INTEL |
>>>>> BTUSB_WIDEBAND_SPEECH },
>>>>> { USB_DEVICE(0x8087, 0x0aaa), .driver_info = BTUSB_INTEL_NEW |
>>>>> - BTUSB_WIDEBAND_SPEECH },
>>>>> + BTUSB_WIDEBAND_SPEECH |
>>>>> + BTUSB_MSFT_VND_EXT },
>>>>>
>>>>> /* Other Intel Bluetooth devices */
>>>>> { USB_VENDOR_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(0x8087, 0xe0, 0x01, 0x01),
>>>>> @@ -3734,6 +3737,8 @@ static int btusb_probe(struct usb_interface *intf,
>>>>> hdev->send = btusb_send_frame;
>>>>> hdev->notify = btusb_notify;
>>>>>
>>>>> + hdev->msft_ext.opcode = HCI_OP_NOP;
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> do this in the hci_alloc_dev procedure for every driver. This doesn’t belong in the driver.
>>> Thanks for the note, I will address this.
>>>>
>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_PM
>>>>> err = btusb_config_oob_wake(hdev);
>>>>> if (err)
>>>>> @@ -3800,6 +3805,11 @@ static int btusb_probe(struct usb_interface *intf,
>>>>> set_bit(HCI_QUIRK_STRICT_DUPLICATE_FILTER, &hdev->quirks);
>>>>> set_bit(HCI_QUIRK_SIMULTANEOUS_DISCOVERY, &hdev->quirks);
>>>>> set_bit(HCI_QUIRK_NON_PERSISTENT_DIAG, &hdev->quirks);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (id->driver_info & BTUSB_MSFT_VND_EXT &&
>>>>> + (id->idProduct == 0x0025 || id->idProduct == 0x0aaa)) {
>>>>
>>>> Please scrap this extra check. You already selected out the PID with the blacklist_table. In addition, I do not want to add a PID in two places in the driver.
>>> If we scrap the check around idProduct, how do we tell two controllers
>>> apart if they use different opcode for Microsoft vendor extension?
>>
>> for Intel controllers this is highly unlikely. If we really decide to change the opcode in newer firmware versions, we then deal with it at that point.
>>
>> However for Intel controllers I have the feeling that we better do it after the Read the Intel version information and then do it based on hardware revision and firmware version.
> I would agree with you given that the FW loaded for the same HW can
> differ, and different FW version may have different configuration in
> terms of the use of extensions. But it's not clear to me how we can
> tell whether an extension is supported based on a version number. Is
> there any implication on the support of an extension given a FW
> version (e.g. any FW version greater than 10 would support MSFT
> extension)?

that is for us to figure out. I will get back to you on that.

Regards

Marcel

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-26 07:13    [W:0.045 / U:0.836 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site