Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-bluetooth+bounces-5228-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1715866294-1549-1-git-send-email-quic_zijuhu@quicinc.com>
 <7927abbe-3395-4a53-9eed-7b4204d57df5@linaro.org> <29333872-4ff2-4f4e-8166-4c847c7605c1@163.com>
 <5df56d58-309a-4ff1-9a41-818a3f114bbb@linaro.org> <0618805b-2f7a-473d-b9fb-aea39a1ef659@163.com>
 <3d27add1-782c-4c19-9d84-d0074113c7a2@linaro.org> <fc035bd7-c9e3-458f-b419-f4ac50322d02@163.com>
 <caa701f8-0d2d-4052-9e55-2b755b172c56@163.com> <eca0655a-260e-45d3-bb4d-7de6519ac148@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <eca0655a-260e-45d3-bb4d-7de6519ac148@linaro.org>
From: Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 10:02:52 -0400
Message-ID: <CABBYNZKx15mrTgvE6bSvxn6YVv=jJKj7jHu1UXVFrtvffHQa9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Bluetooth: qca: Fix BT enable failure again for
 QCA6390 after warm reboot
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Cc: Lk Sii <lk_sii@163.com>, Zijun Hu <quic_zijuhu@quicinc.com>, luiz.von.dentz@intel.com, 
	marcel@holtmann.org, linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org, wt@penguintechs.org, 
	regressions@lists.linux.dev, pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de, stable@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Krzysztof,

On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 9:24=E2=80=AFAM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 10/06/2024 15:17, Lk Sii wrote:
> >>>>> Why Zijun cannot provide answer on which kernel was it tested? Why =
the
> >>>>> hardware cannot be mentioned?
> >>>>>
> >>>> i believe zijun never perform any tests for these two issues as
> >>>> explained above.
> >>>
> >>> yeah, and that was worrying me.
> >>>
> >> Only RB5 has QCA6390 *embedded* among DTS of mainline kernel, but we
> >> can't have a RB5 to test.
> >>
> >> Don't worry about due to below points:
> >> 1) Reporter have tested it with her machine
> >> 2) issue B and relevant fix is obvious after discussion.
> >>
> > I believe we have had too much discussion for this simple change.
> > @Krzysztof
> > do you have any other concerns?
>
> No, nothing from me.

Ok, but I guess since you didn't sign off that means you are still
unconvinced that this should be applied? I could try pushing it to
bluetooth-next to check if it blows up on the next merge window, but
it is not that nice to have things completely untested, as far
upstream goes, being pushed that way.

--=20
Luiz Augusto von Dentz