Because both MT7920 and MT7921 use the same chip ID.
We use the 8th bit of fw_flavor to distingush MT7920.
The original patch made a mistake to check whole fw_flavor,
that makes the condition both true (dev_id == 0x7961 && fw_flavor),
and makes MT7921 flow wrong.
In this patch, we correct the flow to get the 8th bit value for MT7920.
And the patch is verified pass with both MT7920 and MT7921.
Signed-off-by: Peter Tsao <[email protected]>
---
drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c b/drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c
index 4c0cc13adb47..8bede0a33566 100644
--- a/drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c
+++ b/drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c
@@ -3123,6 +3123,7 @@ static int btusb_mtk_setup(struct hci_dev *hdev)
bt_dev_err(hdev, "Failed to get fw flavor (%d)", err);
return err;
}
+ fw_flavor = (fw_flavor & 0x00000080) >> 7;
}
mediatek = hci_get_priv(hdev);
--
2.18.0
Hi,
On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 4:34 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten
Leemhuis) <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 16.04.24 17:10, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > This patch was applied to bluetooth/bluetooth-next.git (master)
> > by Luiz Augusto von Dentz <[email protected]>:
> >
> > On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 22:19:22 +0800 you wrote:
> >> Because both MT7920 and MT7921 use the same chip ID.
> >> We use the 8th bit of fw_flavor to distingush MT7920.
> >> The original patch made a mistake to check whole fw_flavor,
> >> that makes the condition both true (dev_id == 0x7961 && fw_flavor),
> >> and makes MT7921 flow wrong.
> >>
> >> In this patch, we correct the flow to get the 8th bit value for MT7920.
> >> And the patch is verified pass with both MT7920 and MT7921.
> >>
> >> [...]
> >
> > Here is the summary with links:
> > - Bluetooth: btusb: Fix the patch for MT7920 the affected to MT7921
> > https://git.kernel.org/bluetooth/bluetooth-next/c/263296438807
>
> Hi! 6.9 is only days close and this is fixing a 6.9 regression, so allow
> me to quickly ask: do you still plan to submit this for mainline merge
> soon? Or did you already and I just missed it? Ciao, Thorsten
It wasn't marked with Fixes or stable though which is what I usually
use as an indicator to backport.
--
Luiz Augusto von Dentz