Re: RFC: btusb firmware load help

[Marcel Holtmann]

Hi Bala,

> >>>> Thanks Johannes.  This would be better option to change PID in firmware
> >>>> as blacklisting 3002 might create problems for 3011 chipsets.
> >>>> Will try and let you people know.
> >>> The misbehaving 3002 needs to be blacklisted in btusb.c anyway. However
> >>> after loading the firmware to 3002 device, it should change its PID to
> >>> something else.
> >>>
> >>> I am still trying to figure out if this is one stage firmware loading or
> >>> a two stage firmware loading. This is all pretty unclear and nobody has
> >>> answered this clearly so far.
> >> eeprom based 3011 chips comes up with PID 3000 giving control to DFU
> >> driver [ath3k].  ath3k downloads the
> >> firmware changing PID to 3002.  Now btusb gets control.
> >>
> >> In sflash based devices to reduce windows suspend/resume time we had a
> >> small firmware in flash which
> >> enables the device to get detected as Generic Bluetooth USB device with
> >> PID 3002.  So control reaches btusb when device is plugged in, leaving
> >> no option for us to load the actual firmware.
> >>
> >> Solution would be to blacklist 3002 in btusb, enable ath3k to get
> >> control for both the devices, download the firmware and change PID to
> >> 3003 so that control with come to btusb.
> > so here is the thing that needs to be done.
> >
> > a) Get a firmware for PID 3000 devices that change the firmware to some
> > other PID. Since 3003 is already in use as well, using 3004 or later is
> > better approach.
> >
> > b) Blacklist PID 3002 in btusb.c.
> >
> > c) Handle special firmware loading case for PID 3002 sflash devices. If
> > firmware is loaded changed to 3005 or other.
> >
> > And as a general note, I prefer that the PID after loading firmware is
> > different if you don't happen to actually load the same firmware.
> >
> > So please sort out your USB PID assignment for Bluetooth in general.
> > This seems to be a mess that is not thought through properly.
> >
> >
> Thanks for your suggestion Marcel.
> Can't we have same PID[3004 or later] for both the devices after loading 
> the firmware by ath3k?
> We need two different firmware if we plan to have two different PIDs for 
> these two bluetooth devices.

if it loads the same firmware into the device, then it is just fine to
share a PID. If it loads different firmware, then I would propose
different PIDs.

So yes, you can use the PID since you wanna keep the firmware the same.
That is perfectly fine and reasonable.

Regards

Marcel


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/