Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <003501ccdac0$022a89e0$067f9da0$@org> References: <20120124082739.GA19238@aemeltch-MOBL1> <20120124085719.GB19238@aemeltch-MOBL1> <8B1F83F9-649A-4B59-A620-774A60E64D2C@gmail.com> <003501ccdac0$022a89e0$067f9da0$@org> From: ghazel@gmail.com Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 12:59:39 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: BT_AMP_POLICY and RFCOMM To: Peter Krystad Cc: Andrei Emeltchenko , linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-bluetooth-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Peter Krystad wrote: >> On Jan 24, 2012, at 12:57 AM, Andrei Emeltchenko wrote: >> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:36:23AM -0800, Greg Hazel wrote: >> >> On Jan 24, 2012, at 12:27 AM, Andrei Emeltchenko wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 08:15:16PM -0800, Greg Hazel wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> I'm trying to set BT_AMP_POLICY on an RFCOMM socket to >> >>>> BT_AMP_POLICY_PREFER_AMP. In return I'm getting "Operation not supported >> >>> > >> >>> BTW: Why would you need to set this? Functionality is not supported yet so >> >>> nothing will change. >> >> >> >> Oh, I had not made it far enough into bluez to notice it had not been implemented. My >> question still stands I suppose, but is obviously predicated on support being added >> eventually. > > Since l2cap ertm is required for channels on AMP the rfcomm layer is unnecessary, it makes > more sense for obex profiles to be modified to use l2cap ertm sockets directly, which do/will > support AMP. I agree that rfcomm is no longer crucial in the presence of ertm. However, there are existing applications which use rfcomm directly, which could benefit from the AMP functionality with only a tiny setsockopt modification, instead of switching to l2cap instead. Mine is one such application. -Greg