Hi Luiz,
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Luiz Augusto von Dentz
<luiz.dentz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
>
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
