Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753833AbdLURbt (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Dec 2017 12:31:49 -0500 Received: from mail-it0-f65.google.com ([209.85.214.65]:38271 "EHLO mail-it0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752522AbdLURbr (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Dec 2017 12:31:47 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBotKYfc9tnp4juJHZvXN76POCMWCQz8F6EA+5FbfYQgzRFQnjN/oGijFPAi5VofV2UDHQbGK/g== MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20171220110008.11856-1-kai.heng.feng@canonical.com> <20171220185308.GA176644@google.com> From: Brian Norris Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 09:31:43 -0800 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "Bluetooth: btusb: fix QCA Rome suspend/resume" To: Daniel Drake Cc: Kai-Heng Feng , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Marcel Holtmann , Linux USB Mailing List , Linux Bluetooth mailing list , Linux Kernel , stable@vger.kernel.org, Leif Liddy , Matthias Kaehlcke , Guenter Roeck Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1145 Lines: 22 On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 3:43 AM, Daniel Drake wrote: > On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Brian Norris wrote: >> >> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 07:00:07PM +0800, Kai-Heng Feng wrote: >> > This commit causes a regression on some QCA ROME chips. The USB device >> > reset happens in btusb_open(), hence firmware loading gets interrupted. >> >> Oh, did you really confirm that's the root of the problem? I was only >> hypothesizing, with some informed observation and code review; but I >> didn't fully convince myself. If so, that's interesting. > > I have the same doubt. Can you explain how/why firmware uploading and > btusb_open() overlap, and how this is avoided with your patch? > If they do overlap, is that not a bug in the stack that should be fixed instead? > If the fix belongs in btusb and this BTUSB_RESET_RESUME thing really > is problematic, should it be totally removed instead? To be clear: this is a regression in mainline and should definitely be fixed by reverting it. The path forward for patch 2/2 should be determined by a better understanding of where the real problem is. Brian