Hi Marcel,
Thanks for your review.
We will address these comments in updated version.
> > +
> > +/* Receive data */
> > +static int mrvl_recv(struct hci_uart *hu, const void *data, int
> > +count) {
> > + struct mrvl_data *mrvl = hu->priv;
> > +
> > + if (test_bit(HCI_UART_DNLD_FW, &mrvl->flags)) {
> > + mrvl->fwdata->skb = mrvl_process_fw_data(hu, mrvl->fwdata-
> >skb,
> > + (u8 *)data, count);
> > + if (IS_ERR(mrvl->fwdata->skb)) {
> > + int err = PTR_ERR(mrvl->fwdata->skb);
> > +
> > + bt_dev_err(hu->hdev,
> > + "Receive firmware data failed (%d)", err);
> > + mrvl->fwdata->skb = NULL;
> > + return err;
> > + }
> > + return 0;
> > + }
>
> This part actually worries me a bit. Yes, we can do it this way, but in
> general it sounds a bit more like we need a generic approach in
> hci_ldisc.c to handle pre-HCI firmware loading and/or setup.
>
> In the btusb.c driver we added ->setup_on_usb callback. And for it
> sounds like we need something similar here. So that hci_ldisc.c can
> handle most of the basic TX/RX.
Even if we added "->setup_on_usb" in hci_ldisc.c, we will need protocol
specific changes in receive path during firmware download.
With this patch, those changes are smoothly handled in hci_mrvl.c file.
[hci_uart_tty_receive] -> [proto->recv] -> [mrvl_recv] -> [normal Rx path/FW
download Rx handling]
> > +
> > +static int mrvl_setup(struct hci_uart *hu) {
> > + struct mrvl_data *mrvl = hu->priv;
> > +
> > + mrvl_init_fw_data(hu);
> > + set_bit(HCI_UART_DNLD_FW, &mrvl->flags);
> > +
> > + return hci_uart_dnld_fw(hu);
> > +}
>
> So this is clearly the wrong spot. When ->setup is called it is expected
> that HCI is ready. You are misusing it here.
>
Sure. We will move this to mrvl_open() where HCI is not yet initialized.
Regards,
Amitkumar
