Re: [PATCH v1 3/4] Bluetooth: hci_qca: clear HCI_QUIRK_RESET_ON_CLOSE flag

[Balakrishna Godavarthi]

Hi Marcel,

On 2018-11-06 18:32, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> Hi Balakrishna,
>
> > > > During hci down we are sending reset command to chip, which
> > > > is not required for wcn3990, as hdev->shutdown() will turn off the
> > > > regulators.
> > > > Signed-off-by: Balakrishna Godavarthi <bgodavar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/bluetooth/hci_qca.c | 1 +
> > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/bluetooth/hci_qca.c 
> > > > b/drivers/bluetooth/hci_qca.c
> > > > index 8301663f0004..97b57e0f4725 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/bluetooth/hci_qca.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/bluetooth/hci_qca.c
> > > > @@ -1190,6 +1190,7 @@ static int qca_setup(struct hci_uart *hu)
> > > > 		 */
> > > > 		set_bit(HCI_QUIRK_NON_PERSISTENT_SETUP, &hdev->quirks);
> > > > 		set_bit(HCI_QUIRK_USE_BDADDR_PROPERTY, &hdev->quirks);
> > > > +		clear_bit(HCI_QUIRK_RESET_ON_CLOSE, &hdev->quirks);
> > > > 		hu->hdev->shutdown = qca_power_off;
> > > > 		ret = qca_wcn3990_init(hu);
> > > > 		if (ret)
> > > I am pretty certain that you didnât want this quirk:
> > >        /* When this quirk is set, the HCI Reset command is send when
> > >         * closing the transport instead of when opening it.
> > > This quirk is for Bluetooth 1.0b devices where the HCI_Reset behavior
> > > was not clear or for devices that actually misbehave with the initial
> > > HCI_Reset.
> > > In addition, you commit message is totally misleading. That is not
> > > what is happening with this quirk.
> > > Regards
> > > Marcel
> >
> > My intention was reset command is not required when we do an hci down.
> > this is because of hdev->shutdown will turn off the regulators.
> > It is like turning off the chip. sending reset command after turning 
> > off the chip is not required.
> >
> > I understand the usage of the quirk, will update the commit text.
>
> you are papering over the issue. Actually
> hci_serdev.c:hci_uart_register_device() is the culprit with the legacy
> code copied over from hci_ldisc.c:hci_uart_register_dev(). I think
> there is no point doing all this legacy line discipline quirk handling
> until it is really needed. The serdev drivers are all for recent
> hardware.
>
> That said, having moved over to a btuart.c approach and killed the
> whole hci_serdev.c thing would have been a lot better here. You will
> keep running in weird situations where 18 year old code keeps
> surprising you.

[Bala]: even i feel the same. they are lot such kind of HACK's we need 
to do with current arch.
        when can we expect btuart.c merged to bt-next. i think having 
btuart will helps us to have the control of
        vendor porto's call's like in btusb.c

> Regards
>
> Marcel

--
Regards
Balakrishna.