Skip to contentSkip to conversation

TI's BRF chips: always send explicit wake-up acks

PATCH New Ohad Ben-Cohen 1 participant 2 messages Dec 11, 2007 – Dec 19, 2007 Bluetooth drivers

lore
Share & tools
lore
#0 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 TI's BRF chips: always send explicit wake-up acks

Hi Marcel,

I have posted this 2.6.24 patch weeks ago but got no response, and it's already rc5 out there.

This is a small but important fix for the BRF's driver. It has been tested extensively on both the BRF6350 and the BRF6300.

Please tell me if there's anything I can do to help processing this patch.

Thanks,
Ohad.

[Bluetooth] TI's BRF chips: always send explicit wake-up acks

In the (rare) event of simultaneous mutual wake up requests, do send the chip an explicit wake-up ack. This is required for Texas Instruments's BRF6350 chip.

---

 drivers/bluetooth/hci_ll.c |   23 ++++++++++++++---------
 1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
drivers/bluetooth/hci_ll.c +14 -9
index 8c3e62a..b91d45a 100644
@@ -204,6 +204,19 @@ static void ll_device_want_to_wakeup(struct hci_uart *hu)
 	spin_lock_irqsave(&ll->hcill_lock, flags);
 
 	switch (ll->hcill_state) {
+	case HCILL_ASLEEP_TO_AWAKE:
+		/*
+		 * This state means that both the host and the BRF chip
+		 * have simultaneously sent a wake-up-indication packet.
+		 * Traditionaly, in this case, receiving a wake-up-indication
+		 * was enough and an additional wake-up-ack wasn't needed.
+		 * This has changed with the BRF6350, which does require an
+		 * explicit wake-up-ack. Other BRF versions, which do not
+		 * require an explicit ack here, do accept it, thus it is
+		 * perfectly safe to always send one.
+		 */
+		BT_DBG("dual wake-up-indication");
+		/* deliberate fall-through - do not add break */
 	case HCILL_ASLEEP:
 		/* acknowledge device wake up */
 		if (send_hcill_cmd(HCILL_WAKE_UP_ACK, hu) < 0) {
@@ -211,16 +224,8 @@ static void ll_device_want_to_wakeup(struct hci_uart *hu)
 			goto out;
 		}
 		break;
-	case HCILL_ASLEEP_TO_AWAKE:
-		/*
-		 * this state means that a wake-up-indication
-		 * is already on its way to the device,
-		 * and will serve as the required wake-up-ack
-		 */
-		BT_DBG("dual wake-up-indication");
-		break;
 	default:
-		/* any other state are illegal */
+		/* any other state is illegal */
 		BT_ERR("received HCILL_WAKE_UP_IND in state %ld", ll->hcill_state);
 		break;
 	}
Signature · 1 line
1.4.4.2
#1 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 TI's BRF chips: always send explicit wake-up acks

Still got no response, so I send the patch the third time (now attached).

Marcel - is there a problem with it ?

Quoted 75 lines · Ohad Ben-Cohen

Hi Marcel,

I have posted this 2.6.24 patch weeks ago but got no response, and it's already rc5 out there.

This is a small but important fix for the BRF's driver. It has been tested extensively on both the BRF6350 and the BRF6300.

Please tell me if there's anything I can do to help processing this patch.

Thanks,
Ohad.

[Bluetooth] TI's BRF chips: always send explicit wake-up acks

In the (rare) event of simultaneous mutual wake up requests, do send the chip an explicit wake-up ack. This is required for Texas Instruments's BRF6350 chip.

---

 drivers/bluetooth/hci_ll.c |   23 ++++++++++++++---------
 1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
drivers/bluetooth/hci_ll.c +14 -10
index 8c3e62a..b91d45a 100644
@@ -204,6 +204,19 @@ static void ll_device_want_to_wakeup(struct hci_uart *hu)
        spin_lock_irqsave(&ll->hcill_lock, flags);
 
        switch (ll->hcill_state) {
+       case HCILL_ASLEEP_TO_AWAKE:
+               /*
+                * This state means that both the host and the BRF chip
+                * have simultaneously sent a wake-up-indication packet.
+                * Traditionaly, in this case, receiving a wake-up-indication
+                * was enough and an additional wake-up-ack wasn't needed.
+                * This has changed with the BRF6350, which does require an
+                * explicit wake-up-ack. Other BRF versions, which do not
+                * require an explicit ack here, do accept it, thus it is
+                * perfectly safe to always send one.
+                */
+               BT_DBG("dual wake-up-indication");
+               /* deliberate fall-through - do not add break */
        case HCILL_ASLEEP:
                /* acknowledge device wake up */
                if (send_hcill_cmd(HCILL_WAKE_UP_ACK, hu) < 0) {
@@ -211,16 +224,8 @@ static void ll_device_want_to_wakeup(struct hci_uart *hu)
                        goto out;
                }
                break;
-       case HCILL_ASLEEP_TO_AWAKE:
-               /*
-                * this state means that a wake-up-indication
-                * is already on its way to the device,
-                * and will serve as the required wake-up-ack
-                */
-               BT_DBG("dual wake-up-indication");
-               break;
        default:
-               /* any other state are illegal */
+               /* any other state is illegal */
                BT_ERR("received HCILL_WAKE_UP_IND in state %ld", ll->hcill_state);
                break;
        }
--

1.4.4.2