Hi Johan,
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 08:51:49PM +0200, Johan Hedberg wrote:
> From: Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> There's no need to have a separate device class field since the same
> information can be encoded into the EIR data.
>
> Signed-off-by: Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h | 11 +++++++++++
> include/net/bluetooth/mgmt.h | 1 -
> net/bluetooth/mgmt.c | 20 +++++++++++++-------
> 3 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h b/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h
> index 393bb73..02aa0f9 100644
> --- a/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h
> +++ b/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h
> @@ -893,6 +893,17 @@ static inline bool eir_has_data_type(u8 *data, size_t data_len, u8 type)
> return false;
> }
>
> +static inline u16 eir_append_data(u8 *eir, u16 eir_len, u8 type, u8 *data,
> + u16 data_len)
> +{
> + eir[eir_len++] = sizeof(type) + data_len;
> + eir[eir_len++] = type;
Would it be better to use struct eir_info/hdr and assign fields len and
type? I saw already several places where this might improve readability
and remove magic formulas (like "+ 2 - 1").
Best regards
Andrei Emeltchenko
--
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
