Linux bluetooth development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Gustavo F. Padovan" <padovan@profusion.mobi>
To: Claudio Takahasi <claudio.takahasi@openbossa.org>
Cc: BlueZ development <linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org>,
	Ville Tervo <Ville.Tervo@nokia.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Auto Connections
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 17:40:04 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110316204004.GA2339@joana> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimP_XBFy58dMDZa69RQ9UKeZmh++jeuH073doLr@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Claudio,

* Claudio Takahasi <claudio.takahasi@openbossa.org> [2011-03-11 21:30:09 +0000]:

> Hi guys,
> 
> It is time to get opinions from some gurus!
> 
> We need to implement automatic connections to implement the Profiles.
> At the moment BlueZ supports only dual mode adapters, as consequence
> BlueZ needs to start the LE connection. IMHO, it is better to leave
> the responsibility to the controller, implementing "selective"
> connections will only introduce more code without concrete benefits.
> Configuring the controller to autonomously establish connections seems
> to be the right approach to proceed.
> 
> This topic is NOT about StartDiscovery() + CreateDevice.
> StartDiscovery uses active scanning and CreateDevice uses direct
> connection establishment. We need a mechanism to automatically connect
> to "trusted" devices or devices flagged as "AutoConnect".
> 
> 
> My initial idea is: change the LE server socket to report
> outgoing(host initiated) connections through the server socket.
> Awkward?
> To achieve that we need to manage the LE Create Connection(using
> whitelist) in the kernel, extend the management interface to control
> devices in the whitelist, change the LE Connection Complete Event
> handling to get the Role properly.
> Pros:
> - Controller manage connections
> - Flexible to support  connections to "trusted" resolvable address and
> passive scanning
> - Only one "flow" for the connections: LE server socket
> - Maybe we could hide resolvable address from the userspace, mapping
> it directly to public or static random

This approach have a lot of advantages. It seems the best option to me.

> Cons:
> - Risky

Define risky here.

> - Less control of the connection establishment process

But do we need this control?

-- 
Gustavo F. Padovan
http://profusion.mobi

  parent reply	other threads:[~2011-03-16 20:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-03-11 21:30 [RFC] Auto Connections Claudio Takahasi
2011-03-16  2:56 ` jaikumar Ganesh
2011-03-16  2:57 ` jaikumar Ganesh
2011-03-16 20:40 ` Gustavo F. Padovan [this message]
2011-03-16 22:20   ` Claudio Takahasi
2011-03-21 11:00     ` Arun K. Singh
     [not found]     ` <AANLkTinVZEW7WrkTRP-cjxrgk8xy=QLgNE2WX0BF+aoC@mail.gmail.com>
2011-03-21 13:26       ` Claudio Takahasi
     [not found]         ` <AFCDDB4A3EA003429EEF1E7B211FDBBA334C4DE29C@EXDCVYMBSTM005.EQ1STM.local>
2011-03-23 19:11           ` Claudio Takahasi

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=20110316204004.GA2339@joana \
    --to=padovan@profusion.mobi \
    --cc=Ville.Tervo@nokia.com \
    --cc=claudio.takahasi@openbossa.org \
    --cc=linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org \
    /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