Linux bluetooth development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Catalin Drula <catalin@cs.toronto.edu>
To: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>
Cc: BlueZ Mailing List <bluez-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Lower granularity for INQUIRY interval
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 04:00:37 -0500 (EST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0502110351380.28007@qew.cs> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1108109727.18099.7.camel@pegasus>

Hi Marcel,

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005, Marcel Holtmann wrote:

> > > I still don"t get why switching inquiry scan on and off should help in
> > > any case. Since inquiry scan defines the discoverable mode and so you
> > > switch devices to unvisible when they inquiry and back to visible when
> > > they don"t.
> >
> > I never switch inquiry scan off (the scan mode always stays PSCAN and
> > ISCAN). But when an inquiry is initiated, the device switches into INQUIRY
> > mode (or substate) from stops scanning (moves out of the INQUIRY SCAN
> > substate for the duration of the inquiry). That is to say, during an
> > inquiry a device is not discoverable (or visible). That is what I meant by
> > switching between the two states.
>
> in the code you sent me, you did exactly this. So what are we talking
> about?

You're right, I did do that, but then I realized it was unnecessary (as
you yourself pointed out). However, the first issue I raised (that of
being able to inquire with a finer granularity) remains, but as you said
the solution is to go to the HCI level and stop the ongoing inquiry with
INQUIRY CANCEL.

One behaviour that I noticed (just empirically) and that is worth
mentioning is that sometimes it appears that a few shorter inquiries (1-2
seconds long) separated by pauses (of the same length) yield up more
discovered devices than one long inquiry (of say 10.28 seconds). I do not
know enough about the baseband layer to explain this and please notice I
said "sometimes" and "empirically". So this is definitely not always the
case, and it might not be the case at all since it's just based on my
empirical observations (no data, statistics to support this).

Catalin

      reply	other threads:[~2005-02-11  9:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-02-11  7:54 Re: Re: Lower granularity for INQUIRY interval Catalin Drula
2005-02-11  8:15 ` [Bluez-devel] " Marcel Holtmann
2005-02-11  9:00   ` Catalin Drula [this message]

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=Pine.GSO.4.58.0502110351380.28007@qew.cs \
    --to=catalin@cs.toronto.edu \
    --cc=bluez-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=marcel@holtmann.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