Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-bluetooth-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200326075938.65053-1-mcchou@chromium.org> <20200326005931.v3.1.I0e975833a6789e8acc74be7756cd54afde6ba98c@changeid>
 <0cb96a93000c02e4c4816c64492afef10bc76fd9.camel@perches.com>
In-Reply-To: <0cb96a93000c02e4c4816c64492afef10bc76fd9.camel@perches.com>
From:   Miao-chen Chou <mcchou@chromium.org>
Date:   Thu, 26 Mar 2020 17:11:21 -0700
Message-ID: <CABmPvSGbVqnE82Se=ZfTM=h=WTJaibRfP+0Prvz2yxsDLK7Ukw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] Bluetooth: btusb: Indicate Microsoft vendor
 extension for Intel 9460/9560 and 9160/9260
To:     Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc:     Bluetooth Kernel Mailing List <linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org>,
        Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>,
        Alain Michaud <alainm@chromium.org>,
        Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.von.dentz@intel.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@gmail.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-bluetooth-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 1:16 AM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2020-03-26 at 00:59 -0700, Miao-chen Chou wrote:
> > This adds a bit mask of driver_info for Microsoft vendor extension and
> > indicates the support for Intel 9460/9560 and 9160/9260. See
> > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/bluetooth/
> > microsoft-defined-bluetooth-hci-commands-and-events for more information
> > about the extension. This was verified with Intel ThunderPeak BT controller
> > where msft_vnd_ext_opcode is 0xFC1E.
> []
> > diff --git a/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h b/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h
> []
> > @@ -414,6 +414,8 @@ struct hci_dev {
> >       void                    *smp_data;
> >       void                    *smp_bredr_data;
> >
> > +     void                    *msft_ext;
>
> Why should this be a void * and not a msft_vnd_ext * ?
The intention is to hide msft_vnd_ext from the driver.