Return-Path: <cyrus@holtmann.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <a172fe730903302253j6f137249g10c51d85488bd608@mail.gmail.com>
References: <a172fe730903302245k1bb2209ag371e07d4a0cbbb80@mail.gmail.com>
	<a172fe730903302253j6f137249g10c51d85488bd608@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 23:13:27 -0700
Message-ID: <35c90d960903302313y3900c724m285f984ba5eb9ec0@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: eSCO or SCO link?
From: Nick Pelly <npelly@google.com>
To: =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCUkZifRsoQg==?= <mykofzone@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312
Sender: linux-bluetooth-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-bluetooth.vger.kernel.org>

2009/3/30 ???? <mykofzone@gmail.com>:
> Hi All,
>  I made a mistake when writing the email, I have not complete my question.
>
> 2009/3/31 ???? <mykofzone@gmail.com>:
>> Hi All,
>>  I have a stlc2500c which is a Bluetooth 1.2 chip. When debuging
>> function 'hci_connect', i found the hci link type of the arguments was
>> SCO_LINK, because i enabled 'lmp_esco_capable' in my kernel, it call
>> 'hci_setup_sync' to setup eSCO link.
>
> But when i check connection by 'hcitool con', the hcitool show it was
> a SCO link. So, is it a SCO link or eSCO link? Thanks.

hcitool con will report eSCO if it is eSCO, so you have a SCO link.

hci_setup_sync can be used for both SCO and eSCO, and the chipset
and/or the host stack will fall back to SCO if eSCO parameters can not
be negotiated. An LMP log will show why.

Nick