Hi Arman,
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Arman Uguray <armansito@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Luiz,
>
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Luiz Augusto von Dentz
> <luiz.dentz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> From: Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.von.dentz@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> This is the new 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.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> src/shared/gatt-db.h | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 82 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/shared/gatt-db.c b/src/shared/gatt-db.c
>> index b3f95d2..75fdff2 100644
>> --- a/src/shared/gatt-db.c
>> +++ b/src/shared/gatt-db.c
>> @@ -793,3 +793,52 @@ bool gatt_db_get_attribute_permissions(struct gatt_db *db, uint16_t handle,
>> return true;
>>
>> }
>> +
>> +struct gatt_db_attribute *gatt_db_get_attribute(struct gatt_db *db,
>> + uint16_t handle)
>> +{
>> + return NULL;
>> +}
>> +
>> +uint16_t gatt_db_attribute_get_start_handle(struct gatt_db_attribute *attrib)
>> +{
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +uint16_t gatt_db_attribute_get_end_handle(struct gatt_db_attribute *attrib)
>> +{
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +const bt_uuid_t *gatt_db_attribute_get_type(struct gatt_db_attribute *attrib)
>> +{
>> + return NULL;
>> +}
>> +
>> +bool gatt_db_attribute_get_service_uuid(struct gatt_db_attribute *attrib,
>> + bt_uuid_t *uuid)
>> +{
>> + return false;
>> +}
>> +
>> +bool gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(struct gatt_db_attribute *attrib,
>> + uint32_t *permissions)
>> +{
>> + return false;
>> +}
>> +
>> +bool gatt_db_attribute_read(struct gatt_db_attribute *attrib, uint16_t offset,
>> + uint8_t opcode, bdaddr_t *bdaddr,
>> + gatt_db_attribute_read_t func, void *user_data)
>> +{
>> + return false;
>> +}
>> +
>> +bool gatt_db_attribute_write(struct gatt_db_attribute *attrib, uint16_t offset,
>> + const uint8_t *value, size_t len,
>> + uint8_t opcode, bdaddr_t *bdaddr,
>> + gatt_db_attribute_write_t func,
>> + void *user_data)
>> +{
>> + return false;
>> +}
>> diff --git a/src/shared/gatt-db.h b/src/shared/gatt-db.h
>> index 8d18434..0c16e88 100644
>> --- a/src/shared/gatt-db.h
>> +++ b/src/shared/gatt-db.h
>> @@ -96,3 +96,36 @@ 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 *db,
>> + uint16_t handle);
>> +
>> +uint16_t gatt_db_attribute_get_start_handle(struct gatt_db_attribute *attrib);
>> +uint16_t gatt_db_attribute_get_end_handle(struct gatt_db_attribute *attrib);
>> +
>> +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);
>> +
>> +typedef void (*gatt_db_attribute_read_t) (struct gatt_db_attribute *attrib,
>> + int err, uint8_t *value, size_t length,
>> + void *user_data);
>
> So we currently have gatt_db_read_t and gatt_db_write_t, which are
> stored with the attribute, and gatt_db_attribute_read_t and
> gatt_db_attribute_write_t which are used to report the result of a
> read or write. I think this is a bit confusing. Should we call these
> something like gatt_db_read_complete_t or gatt_db_read_result_func_t
> perhaps?
Confusing in which way? We should probably use gatt_db_attribute
prefix anyway and it looked too big to use complete so I just went
with the shortest term I could find.
> Also, won't we also have to change gatt_db_read_t and gatt_db_write_t
> signatures to accept the result functions? If the read/write is being
> handled by a callback, then they should report the result back using
> the new callbacks. This way the code can be uniform regardless of
> whether the result was obtained directly from the database or was
> delegated to a callback (or at least this is what I was trying to do
> in the patch set I sent out last week).
Yep, that is the second part of these changes, but I would like to
first get gatt_db_attribute API done because changing gatt_db_read_t
and gatt_db_write_t will cause quite a lot of other changes which make
it harder to review the details if everything is in a single
patch-set.
>> +
>> +bool gatt_db_attribute_read(struct gatt_db_attribute *attrib, uint16_t offset,
>> + uint8_t opcode, bdaddr_t *bdaddr,
>> + gatt_db_attribute_read_t func, void *user_data);
>> +
>> +typedef void (*gatt_db_attribute_write_t) (struct gatt_db_attribute *attrib,
>> + int err, void *user_data);
>> +
>> +bool gatt_db_attribute_write(struct gatt_db_attribute *attrib, uint16_t offset,
>> + const uint8_t *value, size_t len,
>> + uint8_t opcode, bdaddr_t *bdaddr,
>> + gatt_db_attribute_write_t func,
>> + void *user_data);
>> --
>> 1.9.3
>>
>> --
>> 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
>
> Cheers,
> Arman
--
Luiz Augusto von Dentz
--
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
