Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] Bluetooth: btusb: Indicate Microsoft vendor extension for Intel 9460/9560 and 9160/9260

From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To: Alain Michaud <alainmichaud@google.com>
Cc: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>,
	Miao-chen Chou <mcchou@chromium.org>,
	Bluetooth Kernel Mailing List  <linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org>,
	Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.von.dentz@intel.com>,
	Alain Michaud <alainm@chromium.org>,
	"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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] Bluetooth: btusb: Indicate Microsoft vendor extension for Intel 9460/9560 and 9160/9260
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2020 08:17:23 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <b7b6e52eccca921ccea16b7679789eb3e2115871.camel@perches.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALWDO_U5Cnt3_Ss2QQNhtuKS_8qq7oyNH4d97J68pmbmQMe=3w@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, 2020-03-24 at 11:10 -0400, Alain Michaud wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 4:11 PM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2020-03-23 at 19:48 +0100, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> > > Hi Joe,
> > 
> > Hello Marcel.
> > 
> > > > > > 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
> > > > []
> > > > > > @@ -315,6 +315,10 @@ struct hci_dev {
> > > > > >         __u8            ssp_debug_mode;
> > > > > >         __u8            hw_error_code;
> > > > > >         __u32           clock;
> > > > > > +       __u16           msft_vnd_ext_opcode;
> > > > > > +       __u64           msft_vnd_ext_features;
> > > > > > +       __u8            msft_vnd_ext_evt_prefix_len;
> > > > > > +       void            *msft_vnd_ext_evt_prefix;
> > > > 
> > > > msft is just another vendor.
> > > > 
> > > > If there are to be vendor extensions, this should
> > > > likely use a blank line above and below and not
> > > > be prefixed with msft_
> > > 
> > > there are other vendors, but all of them are different. So this needs to be prefixed with msft_ actually. But I agree that having empty lines above and below makes it more readable.
> > 
> > So struct hci_dev should become a clutter
> > of random vendor extensions?
> > 
> > Perhaps there should instead be something like
> > an array of char at the end of the struct and
> > various vendor specific extensions could be
> > overlaid on that array or just add a void *
> > to whatever info that vendors require.
> I don't particularly like trailing buffers, but I agree we could
> possibly organize this a little better by with a struct.  something
> like:
> 
> struct msft_vnd_ext {
>     bool              supported; // <-- Clearly calls out if the
> extension is supported.
>     __u16           msft_vnd_ext_opcode; // <-- Note that this also
> needs to be provided by the driver.  I don't recommend we have this
> read from the hardware since we just cause an extra redirection that
> isn't necessary.  Ideally, this should come from the usb_table const.
>     __u64           msft_vnd_ext_features;
>     __u8             msft_vnd_ext_evt_prefix_len;
>     void             *msft_vnd_ext_evt_prefix;
> };
> 
> And then simply add the struct msft_vnd_ext (and any others) to hci_dev.

Or use an anonymous union