Hi Gowtham,
>>>>> ---
>>>>> emulator/le.c | 45
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>>> -
>>>>> 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/emulator/le.c b/emulator/le.c index dc51469..7f852a9
>>>>> 100644
>>>>> --- a/emulator/le.c
>>>>> +++ b/emulator/le.c
>>>>> @@ -258,9 +258,9 @@ static void reset_defaults(struct bt_le *hci)
>>>>> //hci->commands[28] |= 0x02; /* LE Long Term Key Request Reply
>>>> */
>>>>> //hci->commands[28] |= 0x04; /* LE Long Term Key Request
>>>> Negative Reply */
>>>>> hci->commands[28] |= 0x08; /* LE Read Supported States */
>>>>> - //hci->commands[28] |= 0x10; /* LE Receiver Test */
>>>>> - //hci->commands[28] |= 0x20; /* LE Transmitter Test */
>>>>> - //hci->commands[28] |= 0x40; /* LE Test End */
>>>>> + hci->commands[28] |= 0x10; /* LE Receiver Test */
>>>>> + hci->commands[28] |= 0x20; /* LE Transmitter Test */
>>>>> + hci->commands[28] |= 0x40; /* LE Test End */
>>>>> //hci->commands[33] |= 0x10; /* LE Remote Connection Parameter
>>>> Request Reply */
>>>>> //hci->commands[33] |= 0x20; /* LE Remote Connection Parameter
>>>> Request Negative Reply */
>>>>> hci->commands[33] |= 0x40; /* LE Set Data Length */
>>>>> @@ -1218,6 +1218,36 @@ static void
>>>> cmd_le_read_supported_states(struct bt_le *hci,
>>>>> &rsp, sizeof(rsp));
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> +static void cmd_le_receiver_test(struct bt_le *hci,
>>>>> + const void *data, uint8_t
>>> size)
>>>> {
>>>>> + uint8_t status;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + status = BT_HCI_ERR_SUCCESS;
>>>>> + cmd_complete(hci, BT_HCI_CMD_LE_RECEIVER_TEST,
>>>>> + &status, sizeof(status));
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static void cmd_le_transmitter_test(struct bt_le *hci,
>>>>> + const void *data, uint8_t
>>> size)
>>>> {
>>>>> + uint8_t status;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + status = BT_HCI_ERR_SUCCESS;
>>>>> + cmd_complete(hci, BT_HCI_CMD_LE_TRANSMITTER_TEST,
>>>>> + &status, sizeof(status));
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static void cmd_le_end_test(struct bt_le *hci, const void *data,
>>>>> +uint8_t size) {
>>>>> + struct bt_hci_rsp_le_test_end lte;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + lte.status = BT_HCI_ERR_SUCCESS;
>>>>> + lte.num_packets = 0;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + cmd_complete(hci, BT_HCI_CMD_LE_TEST_END, <e, sizeof(lte)); }
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> this is actually not enough. You need to put a bit of logic into this
>>> code. For
>>>> example it is either RX or TX test and not both at the same time. You
>>>> need
>>> to
>>>> return proper errors. And the test end command you also return the
>>>> correct value for num_packets. So if you do a receiver test against a
>>>> transmitter
>>> test
>>>> you are getting some useful values here. Otherwise there are just
>>>> empty stubs and we better not bother having them at all.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for the quick review.
>>> Below are the assumptions that I want to clarify:
>>> 1) Need to check rx_chan and tx_chan are in 0x00 to 0x27 range, if
>>> not return BT_HCI_ERR_INVALID_PARAMETERS.
>>
>> that is the first thing that needs to be done.
>>
>> For the TX test also test data length needs to be checked for 0x00 - 0x25.
> This
>> might actually depend on if data length extension is supported or not.
>>
>> Also the packet payload is limited to 0x00 - 0x07.
>>
>>> 2) Need to maintain a global variable (rx_test, tx_test) to track
>>> which test is going on.
>>
>> Yes, and command disallowed needs to be return if either of the tests is
>> active.
>>
>>> 3) When receiver test is called, a global variable (pkt_recv ) is
>>> incremented to track num of packets received.
>>>
>>> Or Should I maintain a structure for (2) & (3) instead of maintaining
>>> globals?
>>
>> The receiving side needs to track the num of packets received on that
>> specified channel. Meaning that if no other transceiver is testing, that
> should
>> return 0. If some other transceiver is active, it should increment with
> the
>> proper interval depending on how long the test is active.
>>
>> You might realise why I have not yet implemented these commands. They
>> require a bit of timing accuracy that we currently do not really have in
> the LE
>> only emulator.
>
> Thanks for the reply. Then I probably skip this one and work on the other
> commands as well.
> Listed below are few missing LE commands that I am planning to work on le.c
> which requires suggestion:
> 1) BT_HCI_CMD_READ_TX_POWER
> 2) BT_HCI_CMD_READ_RSSI
> 3) BT_HCI_CMD_LE_CONN_UPDATE
> 4) BT_HCI_CMD_LE_SET_HOST_CLASSIFICATION
> 5) BT_HCI_CMD_LE_READ_CHANNEL_MAP
>
>
> Apart from that is there any specific reason why BDADDR for LE is not
> created/used anywhere in le.c,
> whereas in btdev.c it was created and used wherever necessary?
> Because of this, LE emulator never gets up, since le.c is using
> 00:00:00:00:00:00 as BDADDR.
> Does it need to be fixed as in btdev?
the explicit intent is that emulator/le.c provide a LE only single mode controller without a public BD_ADDR. So this means that you have to use Set Static Address management command to first set an identity address.
> One more thing, I am not able to write/read the local name for LE
> emulator(le.c).
> The cmd itself it not supported right now. Is it good to be fixed?
LE only single mode controllers do not support HCI command for local name. That is a BR/EDR only feature.
Regards
Marcel
--
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
