On Thursday 11 June 2020 14:53:04 Pali Rohár wrote: > On Wednesday 10 June 2020 19:31:47 Marcel Holtmann wrote: > > Hi Pali, > > > > >>> This utility is very useful for determining which A2DP codecs are supported > > >>> by remote side. So install it to system as part of bluez package. > > >>> --- > > >>> Makefile.tools | 4 ++-- > > >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > >>> > > >>> diff --git a/Makefile.tools b/Makefile.tools > > >>> index 9b9236609..d52721612 100644 > > >>> --- a/Makefile.tools > > >>> +++ b/Makefile.tools > > >>> @@ -176,9 +176,9 @@ endif > > >>> if TOOLS > > >>> bin_PROGRAMS += tools/rctest tools/l2test tools/l2ping tools/bccmd \ > > >>> tools/bluemoon tools/hex2hcd tools/mpris-proxy \ > > >>> - tools/btattach > > >>> + tools/btattach tools/avinfo > > >>> > > >>> -noinst_PROGRAMS += tools/bdaddr tools/avinfo tools/avtest \ > > >>> +noinst_PROGRAMS += tools/bdaddr tools/avtest \ > > >>> tools/scotest tools/amptest tools/hwdb \ > > >>> tools/hcieventmask tools/hcisecfilter \ > > >>> tools/btinfo tools/btconfig \ > > >> > > >> I had no intention to install that tool since it is too limited > > > > > > Sorry, but I have not seen any limitations with this tool yet. I'm using > > > it very often. And also other people who use it have not mentioned any > > > limitations or problems. > > > > > > So could you be more specific what are those limitations? > > > > > > Also it is the first thing which I'm saying people that should run and > > > send me output of it if something related to A2DP does not work. > > > > > > And because linux distributions do not package this utility and bluez > > > developers (for me for unknown reasons) decided to not install it, > > > result is that people have to always compile bluez from source to run > > > this utility if their A2DP audio does not work or "remote" debugging of > > > A2DP is needed. > > > > > > So result is that who want to know why A2DP audio does not work is > > > forced to compile & install bluez from sources and not to use from > > > distribution package. And this probably not the expected state. > > > > > > In any case, nobody reported to me any limitation with one exception > > > that it cannot decode capabilities of some custom vendor codecs. But > > > most of them are already supported as I sent needed patches in past. > > > > > >> and makes too many assumption. > > > > > > For example which assumptions? > > > > that nothing else is happening right now. It backstabs the actual AVDTP and A2DP implementation. > > Marcel, but this is not a problem. For that one purpose which avinfo > provides it ideal and works fine. Personally I do not see any problem > with it. > > > >> In addition it has a bad name with no Bluetooth prefix. > > > > > > So, lets rename it. What about "btavinfo"? > > > > Lets extend btinfo with all sort of capabilities. Make the av portion just one of. I want to remove the multitudes of test utilities anyway. We have to many tiny utilities that are just scattered around and avinfo is just one of them. > > This looks like a not-so-trivial task and moreover independent of > providing current version of avinfo to users. > > avinfo already exists, is already part of bluez project, it is already > compiling during bluez build and is already used by me and lot of other > users and works for that one purpose as expected. > > > > > > >> If we think it is useful to have such a test utility, then we need to clean this up first > > > > > > What exactly to clean up first? > > > > > > Note that I have already done cleanup of this utility. > > > > > >> and put this into a larger btinfo work to gather appropriate information from a remote device for debug purposes. > > > > > > I do not see how btinfo can be used for A2DP purposes. Seems this is > > > utility for local controller info and not for remove A2DP. > > > > This needs a bit thinking, but pretty much simple things like this: > > > > btinfo local > > btinfo avdtp <remote_bdaddr> > > > > We can create a module handling system so that you can easily links existing tiny utilities into one. > > I'm not against this change. But this is additional work which needs to > be done. And it would not happen today or tomorrow unless you have > already patches which implement it. > > As I said avinfo is already there, implemented, it is working and is > part of bluez source code. And is basically the first step when > debugging issues with A2DP audio. > > So what is the real issue with not only compiling this avinfo tool > during building bluez but also installing it? Because nobody presented any real issue for more then month and I'm not aware of any, could be avinfo finally enabled during installation?
