From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02598C54FD4 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 05:18:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD9D92074D for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 05:18:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=chromium.org header.i=@chromium.org header.b="HV62cuaH" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725939AbgCYFSq (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Mar 2020 01:18:46 -0400 Received: from mail-lj1-f196.google.com ([209.85.208.196]:39875 "EHLO mail-lj1-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725907AbgCYFSp (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Mar 2020 01:18:45 -0400 Received: by mail-lj1-f196.google.com with SMTP id i20so1100405ljn.6 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 22:18:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ZPdsfolAYBymNTtjFbWm1sGcSl3euUAzGo5gu/sysho=; b=HV62cuaHNm0sLpPBqbW77tm1j9IRBrwfwZQ4V4KalwZ9pz83sNLLlOl3wYB9F2NPq1 /AthsNfbxYNA4nrE4JWW/CpN92ffFxD4pd1T5KrGlDua3N7tZB7vVnbvlrENLcqEpdxk ksjMcj8hQuXbDYbzP0/lFfLqTvRT3epWfBpN4= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ZPdsfolAYBymNTtjFbWm1sGcSl3euUAzGo5gu/sysho=; b=H47hgqq7zJCFcnyiO+qFih8qOhMJ2WdWb/JPbkGQowXIJzFYNITcpHnBPwoKJ87xy3 4FhqqlCIxQyNn8fw2E/8I7aznK6boR0byvjX+FiYX33wN3q7ACpOGT7JfBCAd8O5jDr3 4jc3QM2p66LfB3d3SJxZwlGSazXk/U23GugBJU7iVG4bwgG4FH+naw3Wpj03lqpcaDdC MmUwq19slT1fdhnue7SMQkZjiTBbPKPNzzMwtt8cJJpTuy2s/Q4ETez3ZhabfPocz6c8 QQVXfusMOw/JseWc2wiiCvaKvhEVVojKSf2gE6ZcU9mvCZquQBWsCwc5Stfl7n2qzm/K NnIQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuahvdqN/ym/NkbaXmOVVe4dtSv4CdvmHpXJLoKd7MmNbkJ2Nx70 fcbBXEUTljnr/00Bo127Uw9T3aO5+VBtMHXPd4j4pQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vtZD1HGvN+DQ13pTWzYdoo8gG5ct+mgTQBTtLRVyqiOPrMAUEgQcPZ2Lj1ENhxI54Gu7sGwUdrwP8XwGF26SXE= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:a551:: with SMTP id e17mr822190ljn.86.1585113522357; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 22:18:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200323072824.254495-1-mcchou@chromium.org> <20200323002820.v1.1.I0e975833a6789e8acc74be7756cd54afde6ba98c@changeid> <04021BE3-63F7-4B19-9F0E-145785594E8C@holtmann.org> <421d27670f2736c88e8c0693e3ff7c0dcfceb40b.camel@perches.com> <57C56801-7F3B-478A-83E9-1D2376C60666@holtmann.org> <03547be94c4944ca672c7aef2dd38b0fb1eedc84.camel@perches.com> <643C6020-2FC5-4EEA-8F64-5D4B7F9258A4@holtmann.org> In-Reply-To: From: Miao-chen Chou Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2020 22:18:31 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] Bluetooth: btusb: Indicate Microsoft vendor extension for Intel 9460/9560 and 9160/9260 To: Alain Michaud Cc: Marcel Holtmann , Joe Perches , Bluetooth Kernel Mailing List , Luiz Augusto von Dentz , Alain Michaud , "David S. Miller" , Jakub Kicinski , Johan Hedberg , LKML , netdev Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-bluetooth-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 12:32 PM Alain Michaud wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 2:35 PM Marcel Holtmann wrote: > > > > Hi Alain, > > > > >>>>>> 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. > > > > Actually supported == false is the same as opcode == 0x0000. And supported == true is opcode != 0x0000. > I was thinking of a more generic way to check if the extension is > supported so the higher level doesn't need to understand that > opcode==0 means it's not supported. For the android extension for > example, this would be a simple boolean (there isn't any opcodes). > > > > > __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. > > > > Anyway, Lets keep these for now as hci_dev->msft_vnd_ext_*. We can fix this up later without any impact. > I agree, this doesn't have a whole lot of long term consequences, > although some will want to cherry-pick this to older kernels so if > there is something we can do now, it will reduce burden on some > products. Thanks for all your inputs. I will group these msft_vnd_ext_* into a struct msft_vnd_ext with future refactoring in mind if new extensions are introduced.