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 B028EC282DC for ; Sun, 2 Jun 2019 16:58:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79BB427983 for ; Sun, 2 Jun 2019 16:58:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="j2B4fnnr" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727138AbfFBQ6z (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Jun 2019 12:58:55 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-f42.google.com ([209.85.128.42]:50790 "EHLO mail-wm1-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726837AbfFBQ6y (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Jun 2019 12:58:54 -0400 Received: by mail-wm1-f42.google.com with SMTP id f204so4978971wme.0 for ; Sun, 02 Jun 2019 09:58:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=QKcuewIVEj06j/cE5HiRPVUPzrXftwmdzc6BWiwg2pQ=; b=j2B4fnnrP2pSYmnAhPL9yopFt7q+R24+NwuT2iWMZCEvaOTuQz6e2r4X/a+0NuS3o6 EAItrTLelpmRpF6IIsJJgWDBhBzWHDrUxt37c9p16DI4nTFVrgzoO7u80uEIGAgj6MLC T8qYB2ABuzpvAve4Gwf9GcwK4oSYRW3scsz5n7+ex5ezuaV7oJWYDEyMiE7ELhS7rdns pylRUGDWNQB5sIDElwKLb/wKdiARQeFjhrKoi+tRf8mg5x9FYpcJM8C2OJ4KMYccJlAb kya7jWsPAq0BgY8aYUm8obZ73r3ywARTgSTd/3SzBE6oMfoSUUtrS2FgsJhMe+Q3j+GL d/sA== 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:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=QKcuewIVEj06j/cE5HiRPVUPzrXftwmdzc6BWiwg2pQ=; b=dkb5cY5gSUkpuJIujbeZxHRF2LxRtA9RDN245c8/UqickX+AM2Hf0tmsXECI9JBmNA 9EqqXBuGalCP73LrMeXpr6NU15NrYasiBjMvEWn/XYP+Igw1rUHlskK2hyUCXB3r5EXf P3Qg8GLeLhiuUGnRzy6EpcWtgzfiBmNymuQqXP9rycxo5Zi503zeublFU6M6195oZpN7 tRD4zIuOz9h+JFQ/Csrec3/TBI9oZcn1sJtcvrCF2zVmKrbFd8V2jkV25D8DuUZSvVZp ghypkNzuvTl92hTd6WNTStpTD1qKBLH9XRQnLeO98C74wrQ69jtSeCQb83Vvgyckpnzq 9gGg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWKzyxYSsXJhonZk3Yb0V2fC1Y6Zf5W+o6xnrxYNcF/hVA4Gx/+ 0wtmyc0WJJwYlmrV5bW9+Po9ecNgL6I= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxqHN0pimZjenahd5+wboM03Xlt34MOT9PaimsXmc14/We33MlGYslnoQMQuwgsJF4Nn1Z5yw== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:c747:: with SMTP id x68mr1954052wmf.138.1559494732566; Sun, 02 Jun 2019 09:58:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from N14xZU (host86-156-195-117.range86-156.btcentralplus.com. [86.156.195.117]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y133sm7344550wmg.5.2019.06.02.09.58.51 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Sun, 02 Jun 2019 09:58:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2019 17:58:49 +0100 From: John Whitmore To: Emil Lenngren Cc: Bluez mailing list Subject: Re: Different respones to BLE scan from a Peripheral device? Message-ID: <20190602165844.GA3886@N14xZU> References: <20190531122557.GA3176@griso> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-bluetooth-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 04:30:38PM +0200, Emil Lenngren wrote: > Hi John, > > Den fre 31 maj 2019 kl 14:27 skrev John Whitmore : > > > > 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 > > You could try running btmon in a terminal to show the HCI traffic. > There you should see the raw advertising packets in form of LE > Advertising Report packets. You should see both ADV_IND packets as > well as SCAN_RSP packets. Maybe the software doesn't always combine > them and that's why you get different results. And yes RSSI is signal > strength. > > /Emi Thank you for that. I'll have a look into that and see if I can't get to the bottom of this issue.