Re: [PATCH v7 2/3] Bluetooth: mediatek: Add protocol support for MediaTek serial devices

[Marcel Holtmann]

Hi Sean,

>>>>>> this is even more hackish since the __hci_cmd_sync_ev command is really meant to get a cmd status first before waiting for that event.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Understood.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I've stopped the hack in v8. could we merge v8 first ? and then I will a fix up with __hci_raw_sync_ev that uses the hdev->raw_q instead of __hci_cmd_sync_ev in TODO.
>>>> 
>>>> so I looked into this a bit more. We actually added __hci_cmd_send for a Qualcomm firmware loader that was doing something similar. So instead of trying to add a yet another command to the core, I actually used that and implemented the wait for vendor event in the driver.
>>>> 
>>>> You will see my v9 on the mailing list. I also did a bunch of cosmetic minor cleanup and spelling correction. Please test this version. I also make __le16 dlen instead of dlen1 + dlen2 since I think that is what your hardware does.
>>> 
>>> Only one thing needs to be corrected in v9. that is __be16 is required instead of dlen1 + dlen2. I will fix it up in v10 and the other changes all look good to me.
>>> 
>>>> If this version of the driver works for you then I am happy to merge it. You can then add support for hdev->set_bdaddr and hdev->set_diag in later patches. I also like to clean up the STP receive handler since it can be done a lot simpler and smaller, but that has to wait.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> hopefully v10 also can be merged :)
>> 
>> send me a v10 and I can merge it.
>> 
>>> I will investigate more about how to add ->set_bdaddr, ->set_diag and STP receive enhancement in later patches.
>>> 
>>> but so far I have not much idea about how to make STP multiplexer be a independent driver.
>>> 
>>> my thought is that it would be really better and cleaner a chain of serdev is be used as the base of mtkbtuart. something like
>>> 
>>> 8250 serial bus <----> STP multiplexer serdev <----> mtkbtuart serdev
>>> 
>>> however, STP multiplexer serdev is not a real device, that doesn't no request any resource. I think it should not be allowed to be added in a device tree and even in dt-binding document.
>> 
>> Before we do that, lets get a cleaner parser for it. I just donât have enough time to wrap my head around this one yet.
>> 
>>>>>> Are all Mediatek vendor commands this way? Or just the ones for loading the firmware? So only the WMT ones?
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Only the WMT ones, WMT commands/events are usually used in system controlling, for example, global function on/off, firmware download, reset and so on. most only appear on device initialization
>>>> 
>>>> Since you never checked the result of the vendor event, I opted for just signaling that it arrived. If they can report success or failure, we need to add some extra code for that.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> I will consider more WMT event status when I add more Bluetooth devices such as MT7668U usb based Bluetooth which I plan to add the support in later patches in the next weeks 
>> 
>> Are the USB ones also using STP or are they H:2 based like all the others. What are prominent MT7668U based ones that I could buy?
>> 
> 1.
> USB ones don't use any STP framing, which is totally dedicated to the
> serial based device.
> 
> I don't exactly know what the term H:2 means you mentioned here. I only
> know the btusb driver can be reused for M7668U and just only one weird
> thing to solve in btusb driver. That is HCI WMT event coming through
> control in pipe, not through interrupt pipe :(
> 
> And as for the others generic hci/acl/sco data, they all work well as
> btusb usually work. I will show you the code to let you exactly know
> what I'm meaning instead of just talking :)

Bluetooth USB transport was originally section H:2 in the specification (and UART was section H:4) that is where this naming comes wrong. The btusb.c driver is implementing H:2 transport.

How does /sys/kernel/debug/usb/devices look for these devices? And I donât recall that there is a control in pipe. That concept doesnât really exist in USB.

> 2.
> Another thing is I think it's better if the core layer can support
> __hci_raw_sync_ev-like APIs to allow each transport driver not to care
> the details about cmd/event synchronization. If it can be done in this
> way, that helps to help WMT cmd/event handling can be put into a
> commonplace to allow btmtkuart and btusb for mtk port to have the same
> codeshare.

Such a core API will not help you. The btusb.c driver has already bunch of examples where it has to fix up things. Qualcomm/Atheros have done there fun way of firmware download and Intel also has done fun stuff with event over bulk endpoints.

> 3. 
> MT7668U should always be bundled with CE product, I am not really sure
> whether it is easy to get from the retailer. Or you really like to want
> a sample, maybe I can try to contact with internal people to make it
> happen.

If it is some NGFF mPCI card that I can plug into an adapter card and attach it to USB, or if you have some dev board, that would be interesting.

Regards

Marcel