Hi Anderson, On Fri, 2011-08-19 at 06:52 -0400, Anderson Lizardo wrote: > Hi Peter, > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 7:17 AM, Peter Hurley <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 2011-08-18 at 03:43 -0400, Luiz Augusto von Dentz wrote: > >> Any reasons why you choose to not add the check inside hci_sched_le? > > > > Only to make it really obvious that LE transmission is not required on > > the vast majority of BT controllers :) > > ... yet. Are you aware LE is not optional on Bluetooth 4.0? Therefore > any modern BT device claiming to support 4.0 will have LE support on > its controller (host support is another thing). I was aware of that, but that's an important point you make. > But I suppose we will still see plenty of 2.1 devices for a long time... As I noted to Andre earlier, this particular test will be unnecessary when Luiz's proposal (using the LE connection count to bypass LE scheduling when 0). I feel Luiz's approach is the more effective approach anyway. Regards, Peter Hurley -- 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
