Hi.
The current implementation of the Bluetooth-next interleaved scan will currently do LE scan , and then BR/EDR scan, although the specs clearly defines that BR/EDR device search should be performed first, and only when done, LE device scan should start. Is there a specific reason why the spec was not followed here ?
Thanks,
Chen Ganir
Texas Instruments
Andre,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andre Guedes [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 3:55 PM
> To: Ganir, Chen
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: LE/BR/EDR interleaved scanning
>
> Hi Chen Ganir,
>
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Ganir, Chen <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > The current implementation of the Bluetooth-next interleaved scan
> will currently do LE scan , and then BR/EDR scan, although the specs
> clearly defines that BR/EDR device search should be performed first,
> and only when done, LE device scan should start. Is there a specific
> reason why the spec was not followed here ?
>
> Implementing LE scan first had some advantages:
> 1. From the implementation point of view, we don't need to change
> anything in BR/EDR discovery neither name resolution code. All logic
> in inquiry_complete_event keeps the same.
> 2. Doing BR/EDR + LE + name resolution we have a 5.12 sec gap between
> finding BR/EDR devices and resolving its names. During LE discovery,
> BR/EDR devices may be out of range and we'll waste time trying to
> resolve its names. By doing LE scan first, we don't have this problem.
>
> Besides, we didn't find any constrain in GAP TS spec about that. Also,
> the Core spec clearly says performing BR/EDR + LE is just a
> recommendation about how to implement interleaving (see Vol 3, page
> 386).
Thanks for clearing that out.
>
> BR,
>
> Andre
Chen Ganir
Texas Instruments.
Hi Chen Ganir,
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Ganir, Chen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi.
>
> The current implementation of the Bluetooth-next interleaved scan will currently do LE scan , and then BR/EDR scan, although the specs clearly defines that BR/EDR device search should be performed first, and only when done, LE device scan should start. Is there a specific reason why the spec was not followed here ?
Implementing LE scan first had some advantages:
1. From the implementation point of view, we don't need to change
anything in BR/EDR discovery neither name resolution code. All logic
in inquiry_complete_event keeps the same.
2. Doing BR/EDR + LE + name resolution we have a 5.12 sec gap between
finding BR/EDR devices and resolving its names. During LE discovery,
BR/EDR devices may be out of range and we'll waste time trying to
resolve its names. By doing LE scan first, we don't have this problem.
Besides, we didn't find any constrain in GAP TS spec about that. Also,
the Core spec clearly says performing BR/EDR + LE is just a
recommendation about how to implement interleaving (see Vol 3, page
386).
BR,
Andre