Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-bluetooth-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1571913139-6477-1-git-send-email-jaganath.kanakkassery@intel.com>
 <585F2A10-B16E-46BD-8EF6-4FD904A485AC@holtmann.org> <CAJzH+bqLK1aohAE3f5-4Xfhz1Gq05URFgZf9yFPAeBF2ekfmQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <368BD38D-6FFB-412D-A6A9-364B3B5374F0@holtmann.org>
In-Reply-To: <368BD38D-6FFB-412D-A6A9-364B3B5374F0@holtmann.org>
From:   Jaganath K <jaganath.k.os@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 28 Oct 2019 11:35:59 +0530
Message-ID: <CAJzH+brQ6vu-o6a7iAmpBT+cbrdGHP3XNfUk61UPyS2D6bwGDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Bluetooth: Always set scannable for Adv instance 0
To:     Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>
Cc:     "open list:BLUETOOTH DRIVERS" <linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jaganath Kanakkassery <jaganath.kanakkassery@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-bluetooth-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Marcel,

On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 11:02 AM Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Jaganath,
>
> >>> By default for instance 0, local name will be added for scan rsp
> >>> data, but currently the property is set as non scannable and hence
> >>> Set Adv parameter fails with Invalid parameter.
> >>
> >> can you be a bit more specific why this is the correct behavior. We must have documented in mgmt-api.txt somewhere, right? Or is this something that used to be correct, but we broke it with adding extended advertising?
> >
> > It seems to be functionally broken in legacy adv as well as we set scan rsp
> > for instance 0 always but Adv Properties is set to non connectable (if
> > connectable
> > is not set). Even we need to fix mgmt-api.txt as well as you pointed out.
> >
> > But in legacy case commands do not fail as  scan rsp can be set even before
> > Set Adv Param where as in extended case Adv param for an Adv set has to be set
> > first before sending Scan rsp and other commands for that particular Adv set.
>
> how does this intersect with the patches that Luiz was sending earlier?
>
I think Luiz patches covers both the issues.

Thanks,
Jaganath