On 4/24/24 5:20 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 at 14:17, Wren Turkal <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On 4/24/24 4:56 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 1:53 PM Wren Turkal <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/24/24 4:16 AM, Wren Turkal wrote:
>>>>> On 4/24/24 2:04 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 07:07:05 +0200, Wren Turkal<[email protected]>
>>>>>> said:
>>>>>>> On 4/22/24 6:00 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>>>>>>> From: Bartosz Golaszewski<[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any return value from gpiod_get_optional() other than a pointer to a
>>>>>>>> GPIO descriptor or a NULL-pointer is an error and the driver should
>>>>>>>> abort probing. That being said: commit 56d074d26c58 ("Bluetooth:
>>>>>>>> hci_qca:
>>>>>>>> don't use IS_ERR_OR_NULL() with gpiod_get_optional()") no longer sets
>>>>>>>> power_ctrl_enabled on NULL-pointer returned by
>>>>>>>> devm_gpiod_get_optional(). Restore this behavior but bail-out on
>>>>>>>> errors.
>>>>>>> Nack. This patch does fixes neither the disable/re-enable problem nor
>>>>>>> the warm boot problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Zijun replied to this patch also with what I think is the proper
>>>>>>> reasoning for why it doesn't fix my setup.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed, I only addressed a single issue here and not the code under the
>>>>>> default: label of the switch case. Sorry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could you give the following diff a try?
>>>>>
>>>>> I had a feeling that was what was going on. I'll give the patch a shot.
>>>>>
>>>>> wt
>>>>
>>>> Considering this patch is basically equivalent to patch 1/2 from Zijun,
>>>> I am not surprised that is works similarly. I.e. on a cold boot, I can
>>>> disable/re-enable bluetooth as many time as I want.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Zijun didn't bail out on errors which is the issue the original patch
>>> tried to address and this one preserves.
>>>
>>>> However, since this patch doesn't include the quirk fix from Zijun's
>>>> patchset (patch 2/2), bluetooth fails to work after a warm boot.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's OK, we have the first part right. Let's now see if we can reuse
>>> patch 2/2 from Zijun.
>>
>> I'm compiling it right now. Be back soon.
>>
>
> Well I doubt it's correct as it removed Krzysztof's fix which looks
> right. If I were to guess I'd say we need some mix of both.
Patch 2/2 remove K's fix? I thought only 1/2 did that.
To be specific, I have applied your patch and Zijun's 2/2 only.
> Bart
>
>>>> @Zijun, this patch looks more idiomatic when I look at the surrounding
>>>> code than your patch 1/2. Notice how it doesn't use the "else if"
>>>> construct. It does the NULL test separately after checking for errors.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> You're more amazing than you think!
>>>
>>> Bart
>>
>> --
>> You're more amazing than you think!
--
You're more amazing than you think!