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: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 15:07:34 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <cdf043ef-b7d5-61f9-b8ea-7e75cb22485f@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+ASDXOGhi4t2R5qrbXHTFkjtzvUL=qHxkJqku4XKJ6u8Wr+cg@mail.gmail.com>

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.

Regards,

Hans