Re: What is the motivation for conn->power_save

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Marcel,

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Marcel Holtmann <marcel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Nick,
>
>> >> If I understand correctly, conn->power_save prevents the host stack
>> >> from requesting active mode if it was not the host stack that
>> >> requested sniff mode.
>> >>
>> >> I don't understand the motivation for this. If we have ACL data to
>> >> send, then it seems like a good idea for the host stack to explicitly
>> >> request active mode, regardless of the reason that we entered sniff
>> >> mode.
>> >>
>> >> We want to enter active mode more aggressively when setting up SCO
>> >> connections, to avoid a 5 second delay with certain sniff modes. But
>> >> the conn->power_save code is getting in the way and doesn't appear to
>> >> be useful in the first place.
>> >
>> > we have discussed this a few times. And if you lock through the code
>> > history then you see that initially we just took devices out of sniff
>> > mode if we had to send data. However with HID devices this falls flat on
>> > its face. They need to stay in control of sniff mode if they initiated
>> > it. Some of them crash and others just drain the battery. With sniff
>> > mode you can send small amounts of data even while in sniff and for HID
>> > that is sometimes used. So the remote side better not interfere.
>> >
>> > What we really need is a socket option where we can control this on a
>> > per socket basis if we take devices out of sniff mode. And one extra
>> > case might be when we try to establish a SCO channel, because then it is
>> > clearly not an HID device. However even A2DP has this sort of problems
>> > sometimes where the stream setup takes time.
>>
>> Makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.
>
> this means you will be working on a patch for this :)
>
>> > Not sure if we have to make SCO setup special. The only reason would be
>> > if there is a case where we don't get an AT command before SCO needs to
>> > be established.
>>
>> If you are in-call, and transfer audio from handset to BT headset,
>> then there is SCO setup without any AT command.
>
> Fair enough.
>
>> I think for the SCO setup case we would always want to enter active
>> mode. I could modify enter_active_mode() to take a parameter like 'int
>> force' that would force us to enter active mode regardless of the
>> state of power_save, and use this when setting up SCO. What do you
>> think?
>
> Actually when you leave sniff mode, then all bets for the power_save
> value are off again. So you better set power_save and just call
> enter_active_mode. Something like this:
>
> diff --git a/net/bluetooth/hci_conn.c b/net/bluetooth/hci_conn.c
> index a975098..e4591e0 100644
> --- a/net/bluetooth/hci_conn.c
> +++ b/net/bluetooth/hci_conn.c
> @@ -376,6 +376,9 @@ struct hci_conn *hci_connect(struct hci_dev *hdev, int type,
>
>        if (acl->state == BT_CONNECTED &&
>                        (sco->state == BT_OPEN || sco->state == BT_CLOSED)) {
> +               acl->power_save = 1;
> +               hci_conn_enter_active_mode(acl);
> +
>                if (lmp_esco_capable(hdev))
>                        hci_setup_sync(sco, acl->handle);
>                else
>
> Alternatively we could create hci_conn_force_active_mode() or just
> implement a proper per socket sniff/active policy.
>
> Regards
>
> Marcel

Patch submitted to Android tree as:

http://android.git.kernel.org/?p=kernel/common.git;a=commit;h=201ac2f225a31dffcb05f1db4d609c467c9c694c

Nick
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bluetooth" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Bluez Devel]     [Linux Wireless Networking]     [Linux Wireless Personal Area Networking]     [Linux ATH6KL]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Media Drivers]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Big List of Linux Books]

  Powered by Linux