From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 995C2C04AB6 for ; Fri, 31 May 2019 12:26:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69D5E268CC for ; Fri, 31 May 2019 12:26:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="nQnVZVlH" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727184AbfEaM0D (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 May 2019 08:26:03 -0400 Received: from mail-ed1-f45.google.com ([209.85.208.45]:46783 "EHLO mail-ed1-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726330AbfEaM0C (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 May 2019 08:26:02 -0400 Received: by mail-ed1-f45.google.com with SMTP id n12so6323665edt.13 for ; Fri, 31 May 2019 05:26:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:mime-version:content-disposition :user-agent; bh=aMbmxFRaYYw4ak2ZOoUZUfj7MueBcRf8sV1vSM6fuak=; b=nQnVZVlH+C6AJCjMQz4Mm6Ld9cgOYvGCbrlyX+LFfl0fIdnI+PK678/fSyhdEEfDb8 JTrnnnNIA0+QA5bOsBC3nmR0gG3ccNSPpFrSFkEbQDiZNWFtjjEF19H77EeD1dxxpzRC ZAT74rWJCEbWgNDk5S8YtCE230JX+psy3EzkJpgVb/YWVbipPA60a8Kbe85x2V3vslow FccFhmEVWkWAu/0dz5SJmK0mrsvZRdcFjN9msRGjAfzeKQpqdtnGI/5xYcRQMUcGBMcx mVoE6rIGxMXOYKrlcyG1b4Erz5/+/upQuNQ52pPoth/3S/JNFMOkF1/brm+kGZN3uS2F VEnw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mime-version :content-disposition:user-agent; bh=aMbmxFRaYYw4ak2ZOoUZUfj7MueBcRf8sV1vSM6fuak=; b=S9U+p68ob44MTaqbgOeNyfJSBSU4bQERfdAFrHWQWmL4H1PK6AQGDkDQcrNFHY80ew K/6lmOHToNB/iwBfuzClNxF7pDvHHCv0mLCwvpCkfWeCR60408dolqU0Nx7VptAemPIZ 0cVaiH3vvTUdoFt/jyqjQtYwDoXl+yNVdZ9kObpuDbxEPoiwR2G2hdx7l3MdFQxAvJlM 67vEs4gZZM1mZuk2OIB/OObqYmhCoOLje2cXrhTZb6lAaxDMYQzizB8hiRze5BRqN7fO NYTBpt/6df7CWn58CvtWfWPHPpF6qxJjVkGesozXw3J27NqJut/dKpRNJa6hoBKtvxer QxcA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXYPnR8Q0FnYbwLUHy1ptkqq4+pbAOcuS6E3bBac+myeQm3BfTC YrWvG0eYIega6qa2cDBtHQcbclQt X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzspGlVky0X+g0XmPTSzJglW5Y7wLKwUP6TLHllGIC0FHzoCce+V2YdG/LVIW9+4sSyPa7+5g== X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:2e55:: with SMTP id r21mr8795668eji.88.1559305561212; Fri, 31 May 2019 05:26:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from griso ([212.129.72.108]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 44sm1588166eds.90.2019.05.31.05.26.00 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 31 May 2019 05:26:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 13:25:58 +0100 From: John Whitmore To: linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org Subject: Different respones to BLE scan from a Peripheral device? Message-ID: <20190531122557.GA3176@griso> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-bluetooth-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org Hello all, I'm running on two identical embedded Linux Gateway devices, both on Ubuntu 16.04 and Bluez 5.37. That's certainly an older version, but it's part and parcel of that version of Ubuntu. I'm having an issue where the two identical gateway devices are getting different responses from a BLE scan, and can't figure out what would be the cause. In both cases it's the same peripheral device, a TI CC2650 device. On one gateway I get a truncated response with just the MAC address and in the other I get the MAC address plus the description string "CC2650.." [bluepy.btle:37] Got: 'rsp=$scan\x1eaddr=b546C0E530068\x1etype=h1\x1erssi=h43\x1eflag=h0\x1ed=b020105030280AA06FF0D0003000011094343323635302053656E736F72546167051208002003020A00\n' [bluepy.btle:37] Got: 'rsp=$scan\x1eaddr=b546C0E530068\x1etype=h1\x1erssi=h28\x1eflag=h0\x1ed=b020105030280AA06FF0D00030000\n' I'm probably going to have to get a Bluetooth sniffer device to trace this issue, but if anybody had any idea what this would be the case, I'd love to hear. Perhaps even though the Gateways are running the same Hardware and Software there might be a Hardware difference in the chipset used or something. It's all I can think of. Hopefully get something to help diagnose this issue. In those two messages there is a difference in RSS, is that signal strength and could that be the issue? Have to open things up. Thanks in advance for any help, and apologies I'm at the wrong end of a learning curve. John