Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] Bluetooth: add quirk for broken address properties

[Konrad Dybcio]

On 3/19/24 17:10, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 8:29 AM Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Some Bluetooth controllers lack persistent storage for the device
> > address and instead one can be provided by the boot firmware using the
> > 'local-bd-address' devicetree property.
> >
> > The Bluetooth devicetree bindings clearly states that the address should
> > be specified in little-endian order, but due to a long-standing bug in
> > the Qualcomm driver which reversed the address some boot firmware has
> > been providing the address in big-endian order instead.
> >
> > Add a new quirk that can be set on platforms with broken firmware and
> > use it to reverse the address when parsing the property so that the
> > underlying driver bug can be fixed.
> >
> > Fixes: 5c0a1001c8be ("Bluetooth: hci_qca: Add helper to set device address")
> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx      # 5.1
> > Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   include/net/bluetooth/hci.h | 9 +++++++++
> >   net/bluetooth/hci_sync.c    | 5 ++++-
> >   2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/net/bluetooth/hci.h b/include/net/bluetooth/hci.h
> > index bdee5d649cc6..191077d8d578 100644
> > --- a/include/net/bluetooth/hci.h
> > +++ b/include/net/bluetooth/hci.h
> > @@ -176,6 +176,15 @@ enum {
> >           */
> >          HCI_QUIRK_USE_BDADDR_PROPERTY,
> >
> > +       /* When this quirk is set, the Bluetooth Device Address provided by
> > +        * the 'local-bd-address' fwnode property is incorrectly specified in
> > +        * big-endian order.
> > +        *
> > +        * This quirk can be set before hci_register_dev is called or
> > +        * during the hdev->setup vendor callback.
> > +        */
> > +       HCI_QUIRK_BDADDR_PROPERTY_BROKEN,
>
> Like with the binding, I feel like
> "HCI_QUIRK_BDADDR_PROPERTY_BACKWARDS" or
> "HCI_QUIRK_BDADDR_PROPERTY_SWAPPED" would be more documenting but I
> don't feel strongly.

Yeah, I thought the same.. and the binding, perhaps could be generic,
as I have a strong suspicion Qualcomm is not the only vendor who
made such oopsies..

Konrad