Re: [PATCH] Bluetooth: btusb: Restore QCA Rome suspend/resume fix with a "rewritten" version

From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
To: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Cc: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>,
	"Gustavo F. Padovan" <gustavo@padovan.org>,
	Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@gmail.com>,
	Bluez mailing list <linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-serial@vger.kernel.org,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
	stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
	Leif Liddy <leif.linux@gmail.com>,
	Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>,
	Daniel Drake <drake@endlessm.com>,
	Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@canonical.com>,
	Matadeen Mishra <matadeen@qti.qualcomm.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Bluetooth: btusb: Restore QCA Rome suspend/resume fix with a "rewritten" version
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 11:54:34 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1711ebe8-8d1a-7d96-bcbe-17238988557a@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cdf043ef-b7d5-61f9-b8ea-7e75cb22485f@redhat.com>

Hi,

On 27-02-18 15:07, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 27-02-18 03:29, Brian Norris wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 11:14 PM, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On 23-02-18 04:12, Brian Norris wrote:
>>>> Hmm? I'm not sure I completely follow here when you say "he was not
>>>> hitting the firmware loading race". If things were functioning fine with
>>>> system suspend (but not with autosuspend), then he's not seeing the
>>>> controller (quoting commit fd865802c66b) "losing power during suspend".
>>>
>>>
>>> He was running a kernel with the original "fd865802c66b Bluetooth: btusb:
>>> fix QCA Rome suspend/resume" commit, which fixes regular suspend for
>>> devices which are "losing power during suspend", but does nothing for
>>> runtime-suspend.
>>>
>>> He ran tests both with and without runtime-pm enabled with that same kernel
>>> and he needed to disable runtime-pm to get working bluetooth.
>>
>> Did he ever test with commit fd865802c66b reverted?
>>
>> My symptoms were exactly the same as you described. BT was broken as
>> of v4.14 if I had runtime suspend enabled. Things were fine if I
>> either (a) reverted the patch or (b) disabled runtime suspend. I
>> obviously preferred (a), which is why I continued to complain :)
>>
>> Did your tester ever try (a)? If not, then I don't think you've really
>> ensured that he really needed a "fixed" version; he may not have
>> needed the patch at all.
>>
>> Or an alternative question: did that system work on an older Fedora
>> release (and presumably an older kernel)? If so, then he probably also
>> did not need that patch.
>>
>>>> So, that would suggest he could only be seeing the race (as I was), and
>>>> that his machine does not deserve a RESET_RESUME quirk?
>>>
>>>
>>> I hope my above answer helps to clarify why I believe the quirk is
>>> necessary on his machine.
>>
>> I'm sorry, but no it doesn't. If anything, it suggests to me even more
>> that it may not have been necessary.
> 
> Ok, I've started another test-kernel build for the reporter this time
> without any quirks at all and I've asked him to test.

You were right, the Yoga 920 works fine without any quirks, thank you
for being persistent on getting this tested properly.

I will submit a patch dropping the Yoga 920 from the
btusb_needs_reset_resume_table.

Regards,

Hans