[Precise][PATCH 1/2] UBUNTU: SAUCE: Bluetooth: Getting ID from descriptor instead of matched rule

[Jesse Sung]

2012/10/23 Brad Figg <brad.figg at canonical.com>:
> On 10/23/2012 02:05 AM, Jesse Sung wrote:
>>
>> From: Wen-chien Jesse Sung <jesse.sung at canonical.com>
>>
>> BugLink: https://launchpad.net/bugs/1065400
>>
>> Since the matched rule could be specified by
>> USB_VENDOR_AND_INTERFACE_INFO() instead of USB_DEVICE(),
>> use the ID in descriptor to make sure we can really get
>> the correct one.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wen-chien Jesse Sung <jesse.sung at canonical.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c |    3 ++-
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c b/drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c
>> index 96baae6..ba88eb4 100644
>> --- a/drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c
>> +++ b/drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c
>> @@ -944,7 +944,8 @@ static void btusb_load_firmware(struct hci_dev *hdev)
>>                 return;
>>
>>         snprintf(filename, PATCHRAM_NAME_LEN, "fw-%04x_%04x.hcd",
>> -                       id->idVendor, id->idProduct);
>> +                       le16_to_cpu(udev->descriptor.idVendor),
>> +                       le16_to_cpu(udev->descriptor.idProduct));
>>         if (request_firmware(&fw, (const char *) filename, &udev->dev) <
>> 0) {
>>                 BT_INFO("can't load firmware, may not work correctly");
>>                 return;
>>
>
> Have these patches been sent upstream?

These are against previous broadcom patchram patches, which are rejected
by upstream [1]. So they will not be sent upstream.

[1] http://marc.info/?t=134933604300005&r=1&w=2