Hi Archie,
On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 9:30 PM Archie Pusaka <apusaka@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Luiz,
>
> As far as the spec is concerned, we can also remove the device by
> calling device_remove. However, I suppose it would be confusing for
> end users if they can no longer find their HID device on the device
> list just because the device previously sent a virtual cable
> disconnection.
> The HID 1.0 spec part 6.4.2 also gives an example of a possible
> scenario when a virtually cabled device is removed: "Unplugged devices
> shall be marked as known and put into a “most recently used list” of
> known devices to facilitate future re-connecting".
Then perhaps we shall have it marked as temporary as well, that said
we do want to introduce disappearing logic so temporary devices are
not left dangling for too long.
> Thanks,
> Archie
>
>
> On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 02:03, Luiz Augusto von Dentz
> <luiz.dentz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Archie,
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 8:54 AM Archie Pusaka <apusaka@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Archie Pusaka <apusaka@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > This patch splits the "bonding removal" function in device.c,
> > > because we need to remove bonding information when receiving
> > > "virtual cable unplug" in HID profile.
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Alain Michaud <alainm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > Changes in v2: None
> > >
> > > src/device.c | 25 +++++++++++++++----------
> > > src/device.h | 1 +
> > > 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/src/device.c b/src/device.c
> > > index 7b0eb256e..9fb0e018c 100644
> > > --- a/src/device.c
> > > +++ b/src/device.c
> > > @@ -4162,6 +4162,17 @@ static void delete_folder_tree(const char *dirname)
> > > rmdir(dirname);
> > > }
> > >
> > > +void device_remove_bonding(struct btd_device *device, uint8_t bdaddr_type)
> > > +{
> > > + if (bdaddr_type == BDADDR_BREDR)
> > > + device->bredr_state.bonded = false;
> > > + else
> > > + device->le_state.bonded = false;
> > > +
> > > + btd_adapter_remove_bonding(device->adapter, &device->bdaddr,
> > > + bdaddr_type);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > static void device_remove_stored(struct btd_device *device)
> > > {
> > > char device_addr[18];
> > > @@ -4170,17 +4181,11 @@ static void device_remove_stored(struct btd_device *device)
> > > char *data;
> > > gsize length = 0;
> > >
> > > - if (device->bredr_state.bonded) {
> > > - device->bredr_state.bonded = false;
> > > - btd_adapter_remove_bonding(device->adapter, &device->bdaddr,
> > > - BDADDR_BREDR);
> > > - }
> > > + if (device->bredr_state.bonded)
> > > + device_remove_bonding(device, BDADDR_BREDR);
> > >
> > > - if (device->le_state.bonded) {
> > > - device->le_state.bonded = false;
> > > - btd_adapter_remove_bonding(device->adapter, &device->bdaddr,
> > > - device->bdaddr_type);
> > > - }
> > > + if (device->le_state.bonded)
> > > + device_remove_bonding(device, device->bdaddr_type);
> > >
> > > device->bredr_state.paired = false;
> > > device->le_state.paired = false;
> > > diff --git a/src/device.h b/src/device.h
> > > index 06b100499..907c7c5c4 100644
> > > --- a/src/device.h
> > > +++ b/src/device.h
> > > @@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ uint16_t btd_device_get_vendor(struct btd_device *device);
> > > uint16_t btd_device_get_vendor_src(struct btd_device *device);
> > > uint16_t btd_device_get_product(struct btd_device *device);
> > > uint16_t btd_device_get_version(struct btd_device *device);
> > > +void device_remove_bonding(struct btd_device *device, uint8_t bdaddr_type);
> > > void device_remove(struct btd_device *device, gboolean remove_stored);
> >
> > Is there any particular reason why device_remove is not enough here? I
> > don't see any reason to leave the device object around after removing
> > its bonding.
> >
> > > int device_address_cmp(gconstpointer a, gconstpointer b);
> > > int device_bdaddr_cmp(gconstpointer a, gconstpointer b);
> > > --
> > > 2.27.0.212.ge8ba1cc988-goog
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Luiz Augusto von Dentz
--
Luiz Augusto von Dentz
