From: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>
To: Catalin Drula <catalin@cs.toronto.edu>
Cc: BlueZ Mailing List <bluez-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: [Bluez-devel] Re: Re: Re: Lower granularity for INQUIRY interval
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:15:27 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1108109727.18099.7.camel@pegasus> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0502110245280.20071@qew.cs>
Hi Catalin,
> > > Not necessarily a bad idea. In my case, I need to do symmetric
> > > Bluetooth discovery. There are no predefined roles (master-slave,
> > > server-client) for the devices which must continually scan their
> > > surroundings in order to discover other devices. Hence, each device
> > > must continously switch between the INQUIRY and INQUIRY SCAN states
> >
> > I still don"t get why switching inquiry scan on and off should help in
> > any case. Since inquiry scan defines the discoverable mode and so you
> > switch devices to unvisible when they inquiry and back to visible when
> > they don"t.
>
> I never switch inquiry scan off (the scan mode always stays PSCAN and
> ISCAN). But when an inquiry is initiated, the device switches into INQUIRY
> mode (or substate) from stops scanning (moves out of the INQUIRY SCAN
> substate for the duration of the inquiry). That is to say, during an
> inquiry a device is not discoverable (or visible). That is what I meant by
> switching between the two states.
in the code you sent me, you did exactly this. So what are we talking
about?
Regards
Marcel
-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
_______________________________________________
Bluez-devel mailing list
Bluez-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bluez-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-02-11 8:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-02-11 7:54 Re: Re: Lower granularity for INQUIRY interval Catalin Drula
2005-02-11 8:15 ` Marcel Holtmann [this message]
2005-02-11 9:00 ` Catalin Drula
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1108109727.18099.7.camel@pegasus \
--to=marcel@holtmann.org \
--cc=bluez-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=catalin@cs.toronto.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox