Hi Ravi,
On Tue, Nov 05, 2013, Ravi kumar Veeramally wrote:
> +static gboolean ctrl_io_watch_cb(GIOChannel *chan, gpointer data)
> +{
> + struct hid_device *dev = data;
> + int fd, bread;
> + uint8_t buf[UHID_DATA_MAX];
> +
> + DBG("");
> +
> + fd = g_io_channel_unix_get_fd(chan);
> + bread = read(fd, buf, sizeof(buf));
> + if (bread < 0) {
> + error("read: %s(%d)", strerror(errno), -errno);
> + return TRUE;
> + }
> +
> + switch (dev->last_hid_msg) {
> + case HID_MSG_GET_PROTOCOL:
> + bt_hid_notify_proto_mode(dev, buf, bread);
> + break;
> + default:
> + DBG("unhandled hid msg type 0x%02x", dev->last_hid_msg);
> + }
This doesn't really make sense to me. If you only set last_hid_msg when
you send a code that you do support, then why would the value of
last_hid_msg ever contain a type that you do not support? (assuming you
always add an entry to this switch statement in the same patch that you
add a corresponding write for the type).
Also, since you don't seem to be using last_hid_msg for anything else
than printing this debug message, I'm wondering is there really any
value for it? Previously (based on our IRC) discussion I understood that
it had some actual functional value that helped determine what to send
to the HAL, but now I'm not seeing it anywhere in the patch. I might
have missed it though (in which case please enlighten me :)
Johan
--
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
