2010/10/23 João Paulo Rechi Vita <jprvita@xxxxxxxxx>: > Hello all, > > I've seen some discuss regarding how to add support for AVRCP 1.3 and > 1.4 versions on the ML lately, and some expectations over the related > work I've done in BlueZ. Sorry for the long delay on replying, I've > been pretty busy lately and just didn't got the time. I'm planing to > put some effort again on this work on the coming weeks. > > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 14:14, Luiz Augusto von Dentz > <luiz.dentz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Sander van Grieken >> <sander@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> I am very much in favor of not directly depending on MPRIS, but instead letting >>> applications registering themselves as a target. For two reasons: >>> >>> - AVRCP seems to be a superset of MPRIS (which is very limited IMO), and might have >>> different semantics, especially w.r.t. event notifications. So we would limit ourselves to >>> the intersecting subset of both technologies. >>> - A separate AVRCP/TG <-> MPRIS bridge agent would still allow controlling all MPRIS- >>> enabled players, so we can have both full implementation of the AVRCP spec, AND generic >>> MPRIS support. >> >> Sounds good to me, we can use Media API to register players as well. >> > > I agree with Sander's opinion that MPRIS seems a bit limited for 1.4. > OTOH it's an already defined and under-adoption standard. If we have > applications registering themselves directly with us, we'll have to > define a new interface for that and push this to the player > applications. Do you guys already have a draft of these interfaces > (for the applications and extensions to the Media API)? I guess we > should try to define exactly what we need first, and them see what's > missing from MPRIS. > >>>> > I am keen to receive your feedback with some ideas and thoughts to put >>>> > my effort in right direction. >>>> > >>>> > Question: >>>> > Is anyone working on AVRCP 1.4 Target role profile development? >>>> >>>> Joao Paulo (http://jprvita.wordpress.com/2010/07/22/avrcp-metadata/) >>> >>> Actually, the metadata work is not part of v1.4 of the spec, but 1.3 >>> >>> Second, I have already added some boilerplate stuff (like a DBUS Connect method for RCP and >>> some fixes for CT commands), but I've based on Joao's branch, so I have to wait until his >>> stuff gets merged. Alternatively, I could rebase that stuff on HEAD, but that would overlap >>> and conflict with Joao's stuff, so I'm hesitant to go there. >> > > Have you published this code somewhere? > >> I hope to see this code being push upstream soon, I will try to >> contact Joao Paulo to get an idea if the code is ready to be >> reviewed/pushed so we get the things rolling. >> > > I'm finally here :) I've focused mostly in the 1.3 version of the spec > and having pulseaudio as a middle-man in my work, and have written > most of the code in pulseaudio to handle these new functionality. Even > if we take the approach described above for 1.4, IMO it makes sense to > upstream this so we can have earlier support for 1.3 and also to > support Sander's work. Luiz, Johan, what do you think? > > I'll review the code once more, since I've written it a few months > ago, but my main concern about pushing it upstream right now is that > it hasn't been tested yet. I have no device to test against and PTS > can't give us no guarantee whether the code really works in practice > or not (but it's still better than nothing). Sander, David, have you > tested my code against any real device? > I have requested some inputs from all to start exchange our ideas as Subject: [RFC] AVRCP 1.4 : Design proposal for future on Target Role I would be keen to receive your feedback. Thanks in advance. -- 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
