Hi Lizardo,
>> +{
>> + Â Â Â /* Inferring the remote type based on the EIR Flags field */
>> +
>> + Â Â Â if (flags & EIR_SIM_CONTROLLER && flags & EIR_SIM_HOST)
>> + Â Â Â Â Â Â Â return DUALMODE_TYPE;
>
> Can the above be simplified to the following?
>
> Âif (flags & (EIR_SIM_CONTROLLER | EIR_SIM_HOST))
We are both wrong, read the last sentence for dual mode devices.
>From Bluetooth SPEC(page 1744):
BR/EDR/LE OPERATION MODES AND PROCEDURE
13.1.1.2 Discoverable Mode
...
A device supporting both BR/EDR and LE physical links shall expose the
capabilities of both physical links by performing the following steps:
a) The âLE Supported (Controller)â and âLE Supported (Host)â bits in
the LMP features shall be set as defined in [Vol. 2], Part C Section
3.2.
b) The âBR/EDR Not Supportedâ bit in the Flags AD type shall be set to
â0â as defined in Section 18.1.
c) The âSimultaneous LE and BR/EDR to Same Device Capable
(Controller)â and âSimultaneous LE and BR/EDR to Same Device Capable
(Host)â bits in the Flags AD type shall be set to â0â as defined in
Section 18.1
>
> I know the semantics will change slightly, but I suppose that either
> host or controller supports simultaneous LE and BR/EDR, it can be
> considered dual mode. It would no be necessary to have *both* bits set
> (my impression).
>
>> @@ -3082,6 +3098,7 @@ void adapter_update_device_from_info(struct btd_adapter *adapter,
>> Â Â Â Âif (new_dev) {
>> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âdev->le = TRUE;
>> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âdev->evt_type = info->evt_type;
>> + Â Â Â Â Â Â Â dev->type = LE_TYPE;
>> Â Â Â Â} else if (dev->rssi == rssi)
>> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âreturn;
>>
>
> Can you remind me why both dev->le and dev->type are necessary in
> struct remote_dev_info ?
"le" will be removed. Thanks!
Regards,
Claudio
--
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
