Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-bluetooth+bounces-878-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2024 09:21:22 +0100
From: Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
To: Sven Peter <sven@svenpeter.dev>
Cc: Aditya Garg <gargaditya08@live.com>,
	Paul Menzel <pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de>,
	Felix Zhang <mrman@mrman314.tech>, linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org,
	stable@vger.kernel.org, Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>,
	Hector Martin <marcan@marcan.st>,
	Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>,
	Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@rosenzweig.io>,
	Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>,
	Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@gmail.com>,
	Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@gmail.com>,
	Orlando Chamberlain <orlandoch.dev@gmail.com>, kekrby@gmail.com,
	admin@kodeit.net, Janne Grunau <j@jannau.net>,
	asahi@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Bluetooth: Fix Bluetooth for BCM4377 on T2 Intel
 MacBooks
Message-ID: <ZZZqgsjeY3R4YlVG@hovoldconsulting.com>
References: <MA0P287MB021769BC136ED0B947683709B867A@MA0P287MB0217.INDP287.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <86B7DC5B-B25A-4D55-BBC7-A1C3EE8AC703@svenpeter.dev>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <86B7DC5B-B25A-4D55-BBC7-A1C3EE8AC703@svenpeter.dev>

On Thu, Jan 04, 2024 at 08:50:19AM +0100, Sven Peter wrote:
> > On 4. Jan 2024, at 08:47, Aditya Garg <gargaditya08@live.com> wrote:
> >> On 28-Dec-2023, at 5:41 PM, Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org> wrote:

> >> Ok, good, then this patch and the one I posted are mostly equivalent
> >> assuming that the BCM4378/4387 return an invalid address during setup.
> >> 
> >> This patch may be preferred as it does not need to rely on such
> >> assumptions, though.

> > So what's the final take on this? Which one is gonna be merged upstream?
> 
> I would’ve preferred this one (possibly with a better commit message)
> since it’s more explicit and doesn’t rely on additional assumptions
> but it looks like Johan’s version was already merged.

Which addresses do BCM4378/4387 return before they are configured?
Should be easy enough to verify that the current check for invalid
addresses catches those or otherwise add them to the list.

Johan