Re: [RFC BlueZ v0 0/5] ACL disconnect reason

[Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@gmail.com>]

Hi Mikel,

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Mikel Astiz <mikel.astiz.oss@gmail.com> wrote:
> We might be discussing about different reconnection policies. You are
> focusing on the short-term reconnection strategy, where several
> attempts can be made in order to reconnect as soon as possible and
> improve user experience. For this I agree BlueZ could handle the case.
>
> However this RFC was motivated by the overall connection policy
> (perhaps "reconnect" was not the right term here). A use-case can be a
> car with a paired phone and HFP is connected. The user leaves the car
> while still turned on (someone else could be driving) and a timeout
> would eventually occur. Next morning, when the user enters the car,
> his phone should be connected. On the contrary, if the user
> disconnected the HFP from the phone, this reconnection should not be
> triggered.

Yep, but that is a reboot case where you probably have to attempt to
connect to each device that was not disconnected cleanly.

> From my point of view, the exact policy of which devices, how many of
> them, using which priorities, which profiles, etc. is manufacturer and
> model-specific. I don't think these policies should be embedded in
> BlueZ. After all, we already have a nice D-Bus API to handle these
> use-cases, and only the disconnect reason seems to be missing.

Disconnect reason doesn't solve all the problems, specially in multi
profile case when just one profile has disconnected but the link is
still active. Besides that I would be very interested to know why each
model has to have a different behavior this goes completely in
opposite of having a common stack with a well defined behavior.

When you say you want this specific per model all I can think of is
how much IOP problems it can cause and in the end I see no benefit for
the user, we should aim for re-connect as quick as possible and that
should be enough for any model.

-- 
Luiz Augusto von Dentz