Hi Luiz,
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Luiz Augusto von Dentz
<luiz.dentz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
>
What I found confusing was that both types of callbacks are named
*_read_t and *_write_t yet they achieve different things. It's OK if
you want to leave them as is, I just prefer names to be a bit more
descriptive in the absence of explicit documentation :)
>> 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.
>
Sounds good to me.
>>> +
>>> +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
Cheers,
Arman
--
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
