Hi Luiz, On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Arman, > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Arman Uguray <armansito@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi Luiz, >> >> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 6:48 AM, Luiz Augusto von Dentz >> <luiz.dentz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> From: Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.von.dentz@xxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> This is just a draft API to reduce the lookups in gatt_db and make it >>> a little bit more convenient for batch operations, so the general idea >>> is to be able to get a hold of it via gatt_db_get_attribute but also >>> replace the handles in the queues with proper attributes so the server >>> code don't have to lookup again when reading/writing, checking >>> permissions, or any other operation that can be done directly. >>> --- >>> src/shared/gatt-db.h | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/src/shared/gatt-db.h b/src/shared/gatt-db.h >>> index 8d18434..ab7469a 100644 >>> --- a/src/shared/gatt-db.h >>> +++ b/src/shared/gatt-db.h >>> @@ -96,3 +96,25 @@ bool gatt_db_get_service_uuid(struct gatt_db *db, uint16_t handle, >>> >>> bool gatt_db_get_attribute_permissions(struct gatt_db *db, uint16_t handle, >>> uint32_t *permissions); >>> + >>> +struct gatt_db_attribute; >>> + >>> +struct gatt_db_attribute *gatt_db_get_attribute(struct gatt_db *attrib, >>> + uint16_t handle, uint16_t offset); >>> + >> >> What's the offset parameter here for? Why not just get the attribute by handle? > > Probably an artifact of copy and pasting things around, it should be > just the handle. > >> >>> +const bt_uuid_t *gatt_db_attribute_get_type(struct gatt_db_attribute *attrib); >>> + >>> +bool gatt_db_attribute_get_service_uuid(struct gatt_db_attribute *attrib, >>> + bt_uuid_t *uuid); >>> + >>> +bool gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(struct gatt_db_attribute *attrib, >>> + uint32_t *permissions); >>> + >>> +bool gatt_db_attribute_read(struct gatt_db_attribute *attrib, >>> + uint8_t opcode, bdaddr_t *bdaddr, >>> + void *callback, void *user_data); >>> + >>> +bool gatt_db_attribute_write(struct gatt_db_attribute *attrib, >>> + const uint8_t *value, size_t len, >>> + uint8_t opcode, bdaddr_t *bdaddr, >>> + void *callback, void *user_data); >>> -- >> >> Are these functions meant to replace the existing gatt_db_read, etc? >> We might as well just replace all of those with functions that accept >> a struct gatt_db_attribute. So that all functions would be preceded by >> a call to gatt_db_get_attribute, followed by one of these functions. >> Unless you want to keep the other functions as helpers that accomplish >> the same thing. > > Yes this would replace some functions that requires handles, I just > wanted to sync up first to get some feedback but it seems these > changes will be straight forward and perhaps we don't even need to > keep the old functions around. > Yeah, it makes sense to have these just replace the old ones I think. -- 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
