Hi Claudio, Anderson, > Please sync with Anderson Briglia, he already sent a RFC to the ML > some months ago. > In the Bluetooth Summit(Prague), we decided to not proceed with RSSI > monitor emulation in the kernel until we have a clear idea or spec > defining how the controllers will implement RSSI monitoring. Could you please provide some details about what was discussed in the summit. > The ideia was to provide transparency, the userspace doesn't need to > know if RSSI monitoring is emulated or not. As per my understanding the BT spec (4.0, Volume 2, Part E, Section 7.5.4) the HCI_Read_RSSI command can be used to retrieve the RSSI from the controller. In our case, I have tested it against ST-Ericsson BT controller and it works in our case. Are you suggesting that until we know how the RSSI is determined in controller, we should not implement this functionality in kernel ? I ask this because in Proximity Spec, it is mentioned that the monitor should use appropriate calculations to prevent false alerts on reporter, so if we leave this to layer above BlueZ to do this part, then we are pretty independent with the approach of implementation of Path Loss RSSI Monitoring in BlueZ and Kernel. If I misunderstood anything please clarify. > The timer is there to trigger overwriting the value if it is already > "none" or to disable the alert. The behavior in the remote side can be > implementation specific, the user can also interfere disabling the > alert(eg: pressing a button). > My point is: think in the UI elements behavior to implement the Find > Me Locator APP. It is easy to implement a event driven action than add > timers in the APP to control/block the user to press the > button(control states). > > Does it help if we add a new property? eg: ImmediateAlertTimeout, zero > means disabled. > > When both are enabled it not possible to determine which service > triggered the IAS alert. If my previous suggestion doesn't help, I > don't see another way to keep both services qualifiable unless we > remove the timer and move the logic to the upper layer(I'd like to > avoid if possible). After doing some more study and analysis at my end, I have come to following points in case both Proximity and FindMe services are supported by remote device - There is no need of timer for immediate alert service if this is initiated by Path Loss. - Timer to be used only if this is triggered for FindMe. Once timer is fired, the immediate alert is set to none and ATT connection is maintained as Proximity Profile is still connected. In case only FindMe Profile is supported on remote device. - Timer is triggered, and on expiration, ATT connection is disconnected in accordance with FindMe Specification - Before timer is fired, if user of Monitor sets alert level to None, same is sent to remote side for stopping the alert. In short we need the following things to support the above use cases - 1) An extra parameter in Immediate alert SetProperty to determine if this alert is for Proximity or FindMe Profile. 2) Mechanism to disconnect the ATT connection if only FindMe is supported on remote device (Currently there is no provision to disconnect the ATT connection in monitor.c, except explicit call to monitor_destroy, which I think is not intended for that) Please let me know you views on this. -- Best Regards Hemant Gupta ST-Ericsson India -- 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
