From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1304030070-6575-1-git-send-email-claudio.takahasi@openbossa.org> <1304030070-6575-2-git-send-email-claudio.takahasi@openbossa.org> <20110429175625.GA29649@jh-x301> Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 14:44:37 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Remove wrong checking for legacy devices From: Anderson Lizardo To: Claudio Takahasi , Luiz Augusto von Dentz , linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-bluetooth-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Anderson Lizardo wrote: > Hi Johan, > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Johan Hedberg wrote: >>> BTW: why this information needs to be exposed through the DeviceFound() signal? >>> It is not used internally in the adapter.c source. >> >> It's useful for pairing UIs. If a device is expected to produce legacy >> pairing when calling CreatePairedDevice the UI can ask the user for the >> PIN *before* calling CreatePairedDevice and thereby eliminate the risk of >> user response timeout locally. > > Maybe this is useful do be documented on doc/device-api.txt? The > LegacyPairing only mentions "This property is useful in the > Adapter.DeviceFound signal to anticipate whether legacy or simple > pairing will occur.", but it is not mentioned *why* the API user might > want to detect legacy pairing devices. On another story, I'm not sure about BR/EDR, but for LE there is a timeout associated with SMP pairing. Would this "anticipate user PIN request" thing be necessary on this case as well? Regards, -- Anderson Lizardo Instituto Nokia de Tecnologia - INdT Manaus - Brazil