Hi Peter,
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 7:17 AM, Peter Hurley <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-08-18 at 03:43 -0400, Luiz Augusto von Dentz wrote:
>> Any reasons why you choose to not add the check inside hci_sched_le?
>
> Only to make it really obvious that LE transmission is not required on
> the vast majority of BT controllers :)
... yet. Are you aware LE is not optional on Bluetooth 4.0? Therefore
any modern BT device claiming to support 4.0 will have LE support on
its controller (host support is another thing).
But I suppose we will still see plenty of 2.1 devices for a long time...
My two cents,
--
Anderson Lizardo
Instituto Nokia de Tecnologia - INdT
Manaus - Brazil
Hi Anderson,
On Fri, 2011-08-19 at 06:52 -0400, Anderson Lizardo wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 7:17 AM, Peter Hurley <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-08-18 at 03:43 -0400, Luiz Augusto von Dentz wrote:
> >> Any reasons why you choose to not add the check inside hci_sched_le?
> >
> > Only to make it really obvious that LE transmission is not required on
> > the vast majority of BT controllers :)
>
> ... yet. Are you aware LE is not optional on Bluetooth 4.0? Therefore
> any modern BT device claiming to support 4.0 will have LE support on
> its controller (host support is another thing).
I was aware of that, but that's an important point you make.
> But I suppose we will still see plenty of 2.1 devices for a long time...
As I noted to Andre earlier, this particular test will be unnecessary
when Luiz's proposal (using the LE connection count to bypass LE
scheduling when 0). I feel Luiz's approach is the more effective
approach anyway.
Regards,
Peter Hurley