Return-Path: Message-ID: <1328022757.1955.218.camel@aeonflux> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] Bluetooth: LE scan should send Discovering events From: Marcel Holtmann To: Andre Guedes Cc: linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 07:12:37 -0800 In-Reply-To: References: <1327531949-29463-1-git-send-email-andre.guedes@openbossa.org> <1327531949-29463-2-git-send-email-andre.guedes@openbossa.org> <1327959331.1955.165.camel@aeonflux> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-bluetooth-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Andre, > >> Send MGMT Discovering events once LE scan starts/stops so the > >> userspace can track when local adapters are discovering LE devices. > >> > >> This way, we also keep the same behavior of inquiry which sends MGMT > >> Discovering events once inquiry starts/stops even if it is triggered > >> by an external tool (e.g. hcitool). > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Andre Guedes > >> --- > >> include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h | 1 + > >> net/bluetooth/hci_core.c | 2 ++ > >> net/bluetooth/hci_event.c | 5 +++++ > >> 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h b/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h > >> index 25f449f..4e569d8 100644 > >> --- a/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h > >> +++ b/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h > >> @@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ struct discovery_state { > >> DISCOVERY_STOPPED, > >> DISCOVERY_STARTING, > >> DISCOVERY_INQUIRY, > >> + DISCOVERY_LE_SCAN, > >> DISCOVERY_RESOLVING, > >> DISCOVERY_STOPPING, > >> } state; > >> diff --git a/net/bluetooth/hci_core.c b/net/bluetooth/hci_core.c > >> index 91166db..fd22035 100644 > >> --- a/net/bluetooth/hci_core.c > >> +++ b/net/bluetooth/hci_core.c > >> @@ -361,6 +361,7 @@ bool hci_discovery_active(struct hci_dev *hdev) > >> struct discovery_state *discov = &hdev->discovery; > >> > >> if (discov->state == DISCOVERY_INQUIRY || > >> + discov->state == DISCOVERY_LE_SCAN || > >> discov->state == DISCOVERY_RESOLVING) > >> return true; > > > > I think we need to start using a switch statement here. > > Ok, then I'll have a code refactoring patch to handle this separately. that is fine with me. Regards Marcel