Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-bluetooth+bounces-879-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Feedback-ID: i51094778:Fastmail
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Sven Peter <sven@svenpeter.dev>
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Bluetooth: Fix Bluetooth for BCM4377 on T2 Intel MacBooks
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2024 09:23:08 +0100
Message-Id: <4D53181A-F6AC-4571-9E84-3B19AB37ADFE@svenpeter.dev>
References: <ZZZqgsjeY3R4YlVG@hovoldconsulting.com>
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
In-Reply-To: <ZZZqgsjeY3R4YlVG@hovoldconsulting.com>
To: Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>


>=20
> On 4. Jan 2024, at 09:21, Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org> wrote:
>=20
> =EF=BB=BFOn 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=E2=80=AFPM, Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org> wro=
te:
>=20
>>>> Ok, good, then this patch and the one I posted are mostly equivalent
>>>> assuming that the BCM4378/4387 return an invalid address during setup.
>>>>=20
>>>> This patch may be preferred as it does not need to rely on such
>>>> assumptions, though.
>=20
>>> So what's the final take on this? Which one is gonna be merged upstream?=

>>=20
>> I would=E2=80=99ve preferred this one (possibly with a better commit mess=
age)
>> since it=E2=80=99s more explicit and doesn=E2=80=99t rely on additional a=
ssumptions
>> but it looks like Johan=E2=80=99s version was already merged.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> Johan

I think the check used to work for BRCM4378 when I originally wrote the driv=
er but I don=E2=80=99t have any BRCM4387 hardware so can=E2=80=99t test that=
 myself.


Sven