Hi Alex,
> The plugin's pin code callback doesn't know about the pairing process. It
> just provides a pin code based on the information provided to this function.
> Although limited state could be added through other new callbacks, this fix
> achieves this by providing more information to the callback itself. The
> new argument "count" states the pin callback attempt of the particular
> plugin for the current pairing of the device. This allows a plugin to try
> different pincodes for the same device in the same pairing process.
>
> To signal that the plugin doesn't provide any pin code for the provided device
> the current implementation returns 0 (an empty pin code). Analogously, with
> this fix, a plugin should return 0 when it doesn't have any other pin code to
> provide for the given device.
> ---
> plugins/wiimote.c | 7 ++++++-
> src/adapter.c | 2 +-
> src/adapter.h | 3 ++-
> 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/plugins/wiimote.c b/plugins/wiimote.c
> index 90d6d7b..c8d024f 100644
> --- a/plugins/wiimote.c
> +++ b/plugins/wiimote.c
> @@ -70,12 +70,17 @@ static const char *wii_names[] = {
> };
>
> static ssize_t wii_pincb(struct btd_adapter *adapter, struct btd_device *device,
> - char *pinbuf, gboolean *display)
> + char *pinbuf, gboolean *display, int count)
> {
> uint16_t vendor, product;
> char addr[18], name[25];
> unsigned int i;
>
> + /* Only try the pin code once per device. If it's not correct then it's
> + * an unknown device. */
> + if (count > 0)
> + return 0;
> +
> ba2str(device_get_address(device), addr);
>
> vendor = btd_device_get_vendor(device);
> diff --git a/src/adapter.c b/src/adapter.c
> index 957f829..f2193cf 100644
> --- a/src/adapter.c
> +++ b/src/adapter.c
> @@ -4802,7 +4802,7 @@ static ssize_t pincb_iter_next(struct pincb_iter *iter,
>
> while (iter->it != NULL) {
> cb = iter->it->data;
> - ret = cb(adapter, device, pin_buf, display);
> + ret = cb(adapter, device, pin_buf, display, iter->count);
> iter->count++;
> if (ret > 0)
> return ret;
> diff --git a/src/adapter.h b/src/adapter.h
> index d158334..692963f 100644
> --- a/src/adapter.h
> +++ b/src/adapter.h
> @@ -132,7 +132,8 @@ int btd_cancel_authorization(guint id);
> int btd_adapter_restore_powered(struct btd_adapter *adapter);
>
> typedef ssize_t (*btd_adapter_pin_cb_t) (struct btd_adapter *adapter,
> - struct btd_device *dev, char *out, gboolean *display);
> + struct btd_device *dev, char *out, gboolean *display,
> + int count);
so I do not think that "count" is a really good name here. Wouldn't it be better to call it "attempt" or something like that?
And I prefer to make these things unsigned if we are not planning to have -1 handed to it.
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
