On Thu, 26 Jul 2012, Andrei Emeltchenko wrote:
Hi Mat,
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 04:50:55PM -0700, Mat Martineau wrote:
The L2CAP create channel request is very similar to an L2CAP connect
request, but it has an additional parameter for the controller ID. If
the controller id is 0, the channel is set up on the BR/EDR controller
(just like a connect request). Using a valid high speed controller ID
will cause the channel to be initially created on that high speed
controller. While the L2CAP data will be initially routed over the
AMP controller, the L2CAP fixed signaling channel only uses BR/EDR.
When a create channel request is received for a high speed controller,
a pending response is always sent first. After the high speed
physical and logical links are complete a success response will be
sent.
Signed-off-by: Mat Martineau <mathewm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
net/bluetooth/l2cap_core.c | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
1 file changed, 53 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/bluetooth/l2cap_core.c b/net/bluetooth/l2cap_core.c
index 24000ad..131d0da 100644
--- a/net/bluetooth/l2cap_core.c
+++ b/net/bluetooth/l2cap_core.c
@@ -3362,8 +3362,9 @@ static inline int l2cap_command_rej(struct l2cap_conn *conn, struct l2cap_cmd_hd
return 0;
}
-static void __l2cap_connect(struct l2cap_conn *conn, struct l2cap_cmd_hdr *cmd,
- u8 *data, u8 rsp_code, u8 amp_id)
+static struct l2cap_chan *__l2cap_connect(struct l2cap_conn *conn,
+ struct l2cap_cmd_hdr *cmd,
+ u8 *data, u8 rsp_code, u8 chan_id)
Do you think chan_id is better then amp_id? At least for channel connect amp_id
looks better.
When we were defining the socket option API, Marcel preferred "channel
policy" over "AMP policy", so I tried to keep terminology more generic
in this code as well. That might not have been the correct decision.
I'm fine with anything: amp_id, chan_id, controller_id, ...
{
struct l2cap_conn_req *req = (struct l2cap_conn_req *) data;
struct l2cap_conn_rsp rsp;
@@ -3390,7 +3391,7 @@ static void __l2cap_connect(struct l2cap_conn *conn, struct l2cap_cmd_hdr *cmd,
/* Check if the ACL is secure enough (if not SDP) */
if (psm != __constant_cpu_to_le16(L2CAP_PSM_SDP) &&
- !hci_conn_check_link_mode(conn->hcon)) {
+ !hci_conn_check_link_mode(conn->hcon)) {
This change (and maybe some others may be merged with previous patch) ?
I think it fits better with this patch. This is a separate hunk in the
patch, but the modifies the same function as the hunks before and
after.
conn->disc_reason = HCI_ERROR_AUTH_FAILURE;
result = L2CAP_CR_SEC_BLOCK;
goto response;
@@ -3414,6 +3415,7 @@ static void __l2cap_connect(struct l2cap_conn *conn, struct l2cap_cmd_hdr *cmd,
bacpy(&bt_sk(sk)->dst, conn->dst);
chan->psm = psm;
chan->dcid = scid;
+ chan->chan_id = chan_id;
bt_accept_enqueue(parent, sk);
@@ -3433,8 +3435,16 @@ static void __l2cap_connect(struct l2cap_conn *conn, struct l2cap_cmd_hdr *cmd,
status = L2CAP_CS_AUTHOR_PEND;
parent->sk_data_ready(parent, 0);
} else {
- __l2cap_state_change(chan, BT_CONFIG);
- result = L2CAP_CR_SUCCESS;
+ /* Force pending result for AMP controllers.
+ * The connection will succeed after the
+ * physical link is up. */
+ if (chan_id) {
+ __l2cap_state_change(chan, BT_CONNECT2);
+ result = L2CAP_CR_PEND;
+ } else {
+ __l2cap_state_change(chan, BT_CONFIG);
+ result = L2CAP_CR_SUCCESS;
+ }
status = L2CAP_CS_NO_INFO;
}
} else {
@@ -3480,6 +3490,8 @@ sendresp:
l2cap_build_conf_req(chan, buf), buf);
chan->num_conf_req++;
}
+
+ return chan;
}
static int l2cap_connect_req(struct l2cap_conn *conn,
@@ -3970,12 +3982,12 @@ static inline int l2cap_information_rsp(struct l2cap_conn *conn, struct l2cap_cm
return 0;
}
-static inline int l2cap_create_channel_req(struct l2cap_conn *conn,
- struct l2cap_cmd_hdr *cmd, u16 cmd_len,
- void *data)
+static int l2cap_create_channel_req(struct l2cap_conn *conn,
+ struct l2cap_cmd_hdr *cmd, u16 cmd_len,
+ void *data)
{
struct l2cap_create_chan_req *req = data;
- struct l2cap_create_chan_rsp rsp;
+ struct l2cap_chan *chan;
u16 psm, scid;
if (cmd_len != sizeof(*req))
@@ -3989,14 +4001,39 @@ static inline int l2cap_create_channel_req(struct l2cap_conn *conn,
BT_DBG("psm 0x%2.2x, scid 0x%4.4x, amp_id %d", psm, scid, req->amp_id);
- /* Placeholder: Always reject */
- rsp.dcid = 0;
- rsp.scid = cpu_to_le16(scid);
- rsp.result = __constant_cpu_to_le16(L2CAP_CR_NO_MEM);
- rsp.status = __constant_cpu_to_le16(L2CAP_CS_NO_INFO);
+ if (req->amp_id) {
+ struct hci_dev *hdev;
- l2cap_send_cmd(conn, cmd->ident, L2CAP_CREATE_CHAN_RSP,
- sizeof(rsp), &rsp);
+ /* Validate AMP controller id */
+ hdev = hci_dev_get(req->amp_id);
+ if (!hdev || !test_bit(HCI_UP, &hdev->flags)) {
Should we also check dev_type here? This might be second BREDR controller.
Yes.
+ struct l2cap_create_chan_rsp rsp;
+
+ rsp.dcid = 0;
+ rsp.scid = cpu_to_le16(scid);
+ rsp.result = L2CAP_CR_BAD_AMP;
+ rsp.status = L2CAP_CS_NO_INFO;
+
+ l2cap_send_cmd(conn, cmd->ident, L2CAP_CREATE_CHAN_RSP,
+ sizeof(rsp), &rsp);
+
+ if (hdev)
+ hci_dev_put(hdev);
+
+ return 0;
+ }
+
+ hci_dev_put(hdev);
+ }
+
+ chan = __l2cap_connect(conn, cmd, data, L2CAP_CREATE_CHAN_RSP,
+ req->amp_id);
+
+ /* Placeholder - uncomment when amp functions are available
+ if (chan && req->amp_id &&
+ (conn->info_state & L2CAP_INFO_FEAT_MASK_REQ_DONE))
+ amp_accept_physical(conn, req->amp_id, sk);
I hope "sk" is a typo, we shall use "chan" here.
Yes, just a typo in commented-out code.
--
Mat Martineau
Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum
--
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
