Hi Arman,
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Arman Uguray <armansito@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Luiz,
>
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:18 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.
>> ---
>> v2: Address problems gatt_db_attribute_read and gatt_db_attribute_write
>> pointed out by Arman.
>>
>> 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 65c5759..19784d1 100644
>> --- a/src/shared/gatt-db.c
>> +++ b/src/shared/gatt-db.c
>> @@ -802,3 +802,52 @@ 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);
>
> Should the "err" argument here and in gatt_db_attribute_write_it be
> uint8_t instead of int? The pre-defined ATT protocol errors as well as
> profile/application defined errors are reported in one byte in an
> error response. What would we need a larger or a negative value for?
Usually we use negative errno to report errors and then have a central
point converting them to native protocol, but perhaps we have to give
the possibility to provide the ATT errors directly here, which is kind
of a stack violation if you ask me, but Android does seems to be doing
it by expecting the application to respond with proper error code, so
perhaps we do both and treat positive returns as ATT error code and
negative as errno.
>> +
>> +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
