From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [4.15 stable regression] "Bluetooth: btusb: Fix quirk for Atheros 1525/QCA6174" breaks bluetooth on some devices To: Takashi Iwai Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Marcel Holtmann , "M. Kristall" , linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org References: <6c97cffb-751f-466d-cd7b-42624fdb18c7@redhat.com> <9a752bfc-74bf-25e7-8820-91d1e3163b75@redhat.com> <20180425124757.GA29829@kroah.com> From: Hans de Goede Message-ID: <9b2d31fc-be06-cc05-1ec1-3d0f6f1e21bf@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 14:18:23 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed List-ID: Hi, On 25-04-18 15:10, Takashi Iwai wrote: > On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 14:49:59 +0200, > Hans de Goede wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On 25-04-18 14:47, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 02:40:37PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On 18-04-18 15:18, Hans de Goede wrote: >>>>> Hi Takashi, Marcel, >>>>> >>>>> It seems that this commit: >>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/commit/?h=linux-4.15.y&id=7ec32f585fefd7c154453aa29ccf8fa2a11cc865 >>>>> >>>>> Is breaking bluetooth on some devices, see: >>>>> >>>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1568911 >>>>> >>>>> The problem is the following error now being thrown: >>>>> >>>>> [   28.466248] Bluetooth: hci0: don't support firmware rome 0x1020200 >>>>> >>>>> Looking at the code I wonder if maybe we need to mask the ver_rom >>>>> with & 0xfff when comparing it to the qca_devices_table[i].rom_version >>>>> filed ? >>>>> >>>>> Or maybe the commit is actually wrong, or maybe devices with the >>>>> 0cf3:3004 USB id need either the BTUSB_QCA_ROM or BTUSB_ATH3012 >>>>> quirk depending on the device and we need to probe this somehow? >>>> >>>> I've been receiving more complaints from users about this on >>>> various devices, so I think that the 7ec32f585fefd7c154453aa29ccf8fa2a11cc865 >>>> commit should be reverted from 4.15.x while we figure this out. >>>> >>>> Does anyone have any idea how we cam distinguish between the 2 >>>> different versions which seem to be hiding between the same USB-id ? >>> >>> 4.15.y is end-of-life, so there is no more releases being made for it, >>> sorry. >> >> Ah, right, no problem, Fedora should be moving to 4.16.x soon then >> anyways. >> >>> But, this commit is in 4.4.y, 4.9.y, 4.14.y, and 4.16. Can you revert >>> it in Linus's tree and I can revert it everywhere else as well? >> >> Takashi, do you agree that reverting this for now is best? And if so >> can you please send a revert? > > The best would be to fix it properly :) > > But I agree that it needs a quick resolution, and the revert is > appropriate in this case. Since you've confirmed that the revert > worked, feel free to submit the revert patch from your side. Done. > Back to the original issue: now I'm wondering what made such > inconsistent behavior. My current suspect is the racy driver loading > between btusb and ath3k. Both have the same USB ID, and the driver > loading order may interfere the behavior with each other? > > Or might it be a WiFi/BT combo chip that may have a racy firmware > initialization? I've no idea I'm afraid. Regards, Hans