Hi Marco,
>The hci_send_req 100ms
>timeout is not enough when
>the chip is in deep
>sleep.
>This patch increases it to
>1000ms.
>
>From: Marco Sinigaglia,
>marco.sinigaglia@xxxxxxx
>---
>lib/hci.c | 6
>+++---
>tools/hciconfig.c | 2 +-
>2 files changed, 4
>insertions(+), 4 deletions(-
>)
>
>diff --git a/lib/hci.c
>b/lib/hci.c
>index 02fc0cf..96fafe1
>100644
>--- a/lib/hci.c
>+++ b/lib/hci.c
>@@ -2753,7 +2753,7 @@ int
>hci_le_set_scan_enable(int
>dd, uint8_t enable,
>uint8_t filter_dup)
> rq.rparam =
>&status;
> rq.rlen = 1;
>
>- if (hci_send_req(dd,
>&rq, 100) < 0)
>+ if (hci_send_req(dd,
>&rq, 1000) < 0)
> return -1;
>
> if (status) {
>@@ -2787,7 +2787,7 @@ int
>hci_le_set_scan_parameters(i
>nt dd, uint8_t type,
> rq.rparam =
>&status;
> rq.rlen = 1;
>
>- if (hci_send_req(dd,
>&rq, 100) < 0)
>+ if (hci_send_req(dd,
>&rq, 1000) < 0)
> return -1;
>
> if (status) {
>@@ -2815,7 +2815,7 @@ int
>hci_le_set_advertise_enable(
>int dd, uint8_t
>enable)
> rq.rparam =
>&status;
> rq.rlen = 1;
>
>- if (hci_send_req(dd,
>&rq, 100) < 0)
>+ if (hci_send_req(dd,
>&rq, 1000) < 0)
> return -1;
>
> if (status) {
>diff --git
>a/tools/hciconfig.c
>b/tools/hciconfig.c
>index 05a8910..aa6d009
>100644
>--- a/tools/hciconfig.c
>+++ b/tools/hciconfig.c
>@@ -268,7 +268,7 @@ static
>void cmd_le_adv(int ctl, int
>hdev, char *opt)
> rq.rparam =
>&status;
> rq.rlen = 1;
>
>- ret =
>hci_send_req(dd, &rq, 100);
>+ ret =
>hci_send_req(dd, &rq, 1000);
>
> hci_close_dev(dd);
Shouldn't the to parameter be passed to hci_le_set_scan_enable(...) rather than hard-coding it and passing it to hci_send_req(as 1000)?
I see that as the logical way for all hci_* functions in hci.c that eventually call hci_send_req(). hci_le_set_scan_parameters and few others yet don't have to as input argument and should be patched suitably ...
Thanks,
Arun
--
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
