* Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@xxxxxxxxx> [2011-05-30 20:27:22 +0300]: > Hi, > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Claudio Takahasi > <claudio.takahasi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Marcel/Johan/Gustavo, > > > > On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Claudio Takahasi > > <claudio.takahasi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Hi Marcel, > >> > >> On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 7:00 AM, Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> Hi Marcel, > >>> > >>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011, Marcel Holtmann wrote: > >>>> > > + BDADDR_TYPE_LE_PUBLIC, > >>>> > > + BRADDR_TYPE_LE_RANDOM > >>>> > > +}; > >>>> > >>>> I am also not sure the we should have this BR/EDR differentiation since > >>>> the specification only talks about public and random addresses. And we > >>>> should follow the specification type value here. I am against > >>>> introducing our enum here. > >>> > >>> The HCI specification only has values for public and random because > >>> everywhere they are used it is already clear from the context (the HCI > >>> command or event in question) if we're talking about LE or BR/EDR. We on > >>> the other hand don't have this contextual information with the > >>> mgmt_pair_device command. Saying "public" there could mean both BR/EDR > >>> public or LE public, i.e. an enum with just two possible values is not > >>> going to be of much use to us. Because of this difference between our > >>> API and that of HCI I don't think it's fair to apply the HCI > >>> convention/restriction to us. > >>> > >>> Johan > >>> > >> > >> I added 3 values because it gives more flexibility. Possible use cases: > >> - Whitelist needs the address type > >> - SMP > >> - As input to decide to store or not information about the device > >> since private address can change every 15minutes > >> > >> At the moment we only need to know if the address is basic rate or LE > >> to select the discovery type: SDP or LE Discovery primary. For > >> pairing, Vinicius is using the kernel advertising cache to discover > >> the address type, passing the address type could avoid wrong fallback > >> to basic rate if the entry is not found in the cache. > >> > >> Claudio > >> > > > > Any objection to add the address type in the MGMT_EV_DEVICE_CONNECTED event? > > Inside event.c there are a lot of get_adapter_and_device calls, for > > some contexts it creates a new device object if it doesn't exist(eg: > > incoming pairing). But the type is required to create a new device, > > otherwise it will not be possible to trigger the reverse service > > search. Obtain the type later based on the link key type will not > > work, unless we create a device with unknown type to be able to call > > the agent methods. > > > > BTW, is there a reason why it is necessary to "force" device > > creation(get_adapter_and_device option)? In my opinion we could create > > the device(if it doesn't exist) it inside btd_event_conn_complete > > only. There is a potential race condition: other application calling > > RemoveDevice, but for this case reference counting should work. > > > > Currently, controllers doesn't support simultaneous BR/EDR/LE, this is > > another argument to export the address type or connection type through > > management interface avoiding future changes on the API. > > What about having a different socket family for le e.g. > AF_BLUETOOTH_LE? With that we could have more direct mapping with the > spec, with proper 49 bit addresses and things like that so we don't > have to break existing code. A new socket family may be too much, we can do this through a new sockopt item. I think this is possible, especially if we plan to export some other LE specific info to the userspace. Do you have any idea of which things will we put on a l2cap_options_le struct? -- Gustavo F. Padovan http://profusion.mobi -- 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
