Hi Lukasz,
> > ---
> > src/shared/gatt-client.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> > src/shared/gatt-client.h | 4 ++++
> > 2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/src/shared/gatt-client.c b/src/shared/gatt-client.c index
> > 6dc8e95..aee3969 100644
> > --- a/src/shared/gatt-client.c
> > +++ b/src/shared/gatt-client.c
> > @@ -1753,19 +1753,26 @@ bool bt_gatt_client_read_long_value(struct
> > bt_gatt_client *client, bool bt_gatt_client_write_without_response(struct
> bt_gatt_client *client,
> > uint16_t value_handle,
> > bool signed_write,
> > - uint8_t *value, uint16_t length) {
> > + uint8_t *value, uint16_t
> > +length) {
> > uint8_t pdu[2 + length];
> >
> > if (!client)
> > return 0;
> >
> > - /* TODO: Support this once bt_att_send supports signed writes. */
> > - if (signed_write)
> > - return 0;
> > -
> > put_le16(value_handle, pdu);
> > memcpy(pdu + 2, value, length);
> >
> > + if (signed_write) {
> > + if (bt_att_local_csrk_is_valid(client->att))
>
> In my opinion bt_att_local_csrk_is_valid API seems to be unnecessary as CSRK can
> be checked inside bt_att_send function directly.
>
I agree with you that it is also ok to be checked inside bt_att_send function and have thought
about this problem before.
And I think there are two advantages of checking valid outside bt_att_send function
1. provide API to user to check CSRK status if they want.
2. if the CSRK is invalid , we can just return false quickly , there is no need to go on calling
down bt_att_send then return false back. It will be more efficient I think.
What's your point about this ?
Best Regards
Chaojie Gu
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{��� �^n�r������&��z�ޗ�zf���h���~����������_��+v���)ߣ�
