Hi Pali,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be honest, I would rather see WBS implementation finally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach PA before we start digging into this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> First I want to finish improving A2DP codec support in pulseaudio. Later
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can look at HSP/HFP profiles. Ideally it should have modular/plugin
>>>>>>>>>>>>> extensible design. So the aim is that adding new codec would be very
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple, without need to hack something related to mSBC/WBC, AuriStream
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or any other codec.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Well HSP don't have support for codec negotiation, but yes a modular
>>>>>>>>>>>> design is probably recommended.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But for AuriStream I need to set custom SCO parameters as described
>>>>>>>>>>>>> below and currently kernel does not support it. This is why I'm asking
>>>>>>>>>>>>> how kernel can export for userspace configuration of SCO parameters...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We can always come up with socket options but we got to see the value
>>>>>>>>>>>> it would bring since AuriStream don't look that popular among
>>>>>>>>>>>> headsets, at least Ive never seem any device advertising it like
>>>>>>>>>>>> apt-X, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Pali clearly has such device and he is willing to work on it. Surely
>>>>>>>>>>> that means it is popular enough to be supported...?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Just put AT+CSRSF=0,0,0,0,0,7 to google search and you would see that
>>>>>>>>>> not only I have such device...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So I would really would like to see that kernel finally stops blocking
>>>>>>>>>> usage of this AuriStream codec.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> we need to figure out on how we do the kernel API to allow you this specific setting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Marcel! Kernel API for userspace should be simple. Just add two
>>>>>>>> ioctls for retrieving and setting structure with custom parameters:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> syncPktTypes = 0x003F
>>>>>>>> bandwidth = 4000
>>>>>>>> max_latency = 16
>>>>>>>> voice_settings = 0x63
>>>>>>>> retx_effort = 2
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or add more ioctls, one ioctl per parameter. There is already only ioctl
>>>>>>>> for voice settings and moreover it is whitelisted only for two values.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it is not that simple actually. Most profiles define a certain set of parameters and then they try to configure better settings and only fallback to a specification defined default as last resort.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok. I see that there is another "example" configuration for AuriStream
>>>>>> with just different syncPktTypes = 0x02BF and bandwidth = 3850.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So it really is not simple as it can be seen.
>>>>>
>>>>> currently the stepping for mSBC and CVSD are hard-coded in esco_param_cvsd and esco_param_msbc arrays in hci_conn.c and then selected by the ->setting parameter.
>>>>>
>>>>> So either we provide an new socket option (for example BT_VOICE_EXT) or we extend BT_VOICE to allow providing the needed information. However this needs to be flexible array size since we should then be able to encode multiple stepping that are tried in order.
>>>>>
>>>>> My preference is that we extend BT_VOICE and not introduce a new socket option. So feel free to propose how we can load the full tables into the SCO socket. I mean we are not really far off actually. The only difference is that currently the tables are in the hci_conn.c file and selected by the provided voice->setting. However nothing really stops us from providing the full table via user space.
>>>>
>>>> Ok. I will look at it and I will try to propose how to extend current
>>>> BT_VOICE ioctl API for supporting all those new parameters.
>>>
>>> Below is inline MIME part with POC patch which try to implement a new
>>> IOCTL (currently named BT_VOICE_SETUP) for configuring voice sco
>>> settings.
>>>
>>> It uses flexible array of parameters <tx_bandwidth, rx_bandwidth,
>>> voice_setting, pkt_type, max_latency, retrans_effort>, but with
>>> maximally 10 array members (due to usage of static array storage). cvsd
>>> codec uses 7 different fallback settings (see voice_setup_cvsd), so for
>>> POC 10 should be enough.
>>>
>>> Because a new IOCL has different members then old BT_VOICE I rather
>>> decided to introduce a new IOCTL and not hacking old IOCTL to accept two
>>> different structures.
>>>
>>> Please let me know what do you think about this API, if this is a way
>>> how to continue or if something different is needed.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Pali Rohár
>>> pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx
>>> diff --git a/include/net/bluetooth/bluetooth.h b/include/net/bluetooth/bluetooth.h
>>> index fabee6db0abb..0e9f4ac07220 100644
>>> --- a/include/net/bluetooth/bluetooth.h
>>> +++ b/include/net/bluetooth/bluetooth.h
>>> @@ -122,6 +122,19 @@ struct bt_voice {
>>> #define BT_SNDMTU 12
>>> #define BT_RCVMTU 13
>>>
>>> +#define BT_VOICE_SETUP 14
>>> +#define BT_VOICE_SETUP_ARRAY_SIZE 10
>>> +struct bt_voice_setup {
>>> + __u8 sco_capable:1;
>>> + __u8 esco_capable:1;
>>> + __u32 tx_bandwidth;
>>> + __u32 rx_bandwidth;
>>> + __u16 voice_setting;
>>> + __u16 pkt_type;
>>> + __u16 max_latency;
>>> + __u8 retrans_effort;
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> __printf(1, 2)
>>> void bt_info(const char *fmt, ...);
>>> __printf(1, 2)
>>> diff --git a/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h b/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h
>>> index 094e61e07030..8f3c161da1c4 100644
>>> --- a/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h
>>> +++ b/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h
>>> @@ -477,7 +477,7 @@ struct hci_conn {
>>> __u8 passkey_entered;
>>> __u16 disc_timeout;
>>> __u16 conn_timeout;
>>> - __u16 setting;
>>> + struct bt_voice_setup voice_setup[BT_VOICE_SETUP_ARRAY_SIZE];
>>> __u16 le_conn_min_interval;
>>> __u16 le_conn_max_interval;
>>> __u16 le_conn_interval;
>>> @@ -897,8 +897,8 @@ static inline struct hci_conn *hci_lookup_le_connect(struct hci_dev *hdev)
>>> }
>>>
>>> int hci_disconnect(struct hci_conn *conn, __u8 reason);
>>> -bool hci_setup_sync(struct hci_conn *conn, __u16 handle);
>>> -void hci_sco_setup(struct hci_conn *conn, __u8 status);
>>> +int hci_setup_sync(struct hci_conn *conn, __u16 handle);
>>> +int hci_sco_setup(struct hci_conn *conn, __u8 status);
>>>
>>> struct hci_conn *hci_conn_add(struct hci_dev *hdev, int type, bdaddr_t *dst,
>>> u8 role);
>>> @@ -920,7 +920,7 @@ struct hci_conn *hci_connect_le(struct hci_dev *hdev, bdaddr_t *dst,
>>> struct hci_conn *hci_connect_acl(struct hci_dev *hdev, bdaddr_t *dst,
>>> u8 sec_level, u8 auth_type);
>>> struct hci_conn *hci_connect_sco(struct hci_dev *hdev, int type, bdaddr_t *dst,
>>> - __u16 setting);
>>> + struct bt_voice_setup *voice_setup);
>>> int hci_conn_check_link_mode(struct hci_conn *conn);
>>> int hci_conn_check_secure(struct hci_conn *conn, __u8 sec_level);
>>> int hci_conn_security(struct hci_conn *conn, __u8 sec_level, __u8 auth_type,
>>> diff --git a/net/bluetooth/hci_conn.c b/net/bluetooth/hci_conn.c
>>> index bd4978ce8c45..0aa2ad98eb80 100644
>>> --- a/net/bluetooth/hci_conn.c
>>> +++ b/net/bluetooth/hci_conn.c
>>> @@ -35,30 +35,6 @@
>>> #include "smp.h"
>>> #include "a2mp.h"
>>>
>>> -struct sco_param {
>>> - u16 pkt_type;
>>> - u16 max_latency;
>>> - u8 retrans_effort;
>>> -};
>>> -
>>> -static const struct sco_param esco_param_cvsd[] = {
>>> - { EDR_ESCO_MASK & ~ESCO_2EV3, 0x000a, 0x01 }, /* S3 */
>>> - { EDR_ESCO_MASK & ~ESCO_2EV3, 0x0007, 0x01 }, /* S2 */
>>> - { EDR_ESCO_MASK | ESCO_EV3, 0x0007, 0x01 }, /* S1 */
>>> - { EDR_ESCO_MASK | ESCO_HV3, 0xffff, 0x01 }, /* D1 */
>>> - { EDR_ESCO_MASK | ESCO_HV1, 0xffff, 0x01 }, /* D0 */
>>> -};
>>> -
>>> -static const struct sco_param sco_param_cvsd[] = {
>>> - { EDR_ESCO_MASK | ESCO_HV3, 0xffff, 0xff }, /* D1 */
>>> - { EDR_ESCO_MASK | ESCO_HV1, 0xffff, 0xff }, /* D0 */
>>> -};
>>> -
>>> -static const struct sco_param esco_param_msbc[] = {
>>> - { EDR_ESCO_MASK & ~ESCO_2EV3, 0x000d, 0x02 }, /* T2 */
>>> - { EDR_ESCO_MASK | ESCO_EV3, 0x0008, 0x02 }, /* T1 */
>>> -};
>>> -
>>
>> can you split this into multiple logical patches. And ensure sending it with git send-email.
>
> I just send it as is to know if such API make sense and should I
> continue or not. Preparing patches for git send-email takes a lot of
> time and I wanted to know if such API is OK or should be fully
> rewritten. So I do not spend on something which does not make sense.
> Above patch is not mean to be complete not ready for merge.
What is wrong with git-format-patch? I don’t need much time to prepare patches. Anyway, I going to have a look what is the best way to load these parameter tables into the kernel.
Regards
Marcel
