Hi Anderson, > >> >>> 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? > > Yes. We could add an MTU value for MTU configuration on LE connections > [1]. What do you think? > > [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-bluetooth&m=130373816101608&w=2 please stop going crazy here. First of all, we are not introducing a new socket family just for LE. That is crazy talk ;) And as I explained before, being able to change the MTU at runtime is fine as a generic socket option. That it will fail on BR/EDR sockets is also fine since that is a clear defined invalid behavior. Just try adding BT_MTU socket option and see where this leads us. I don't think we need to split between incoming and outgoing MTU anyway since that was a pretty bad idea from early L2CAP that is just stupid. Regards Marcel -- 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
