Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-bluetooth-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 13 Apr 2020 19:58:33 +0200
From:   Pali =?utf-8?B?Um9ow6Fy?= <pali@kernel.org>
To:     Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@gmail.com>
Cc:     "linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org" <linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org>,
        David Heidelberg <david@ixit.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] src/profile: Distinguish between zero-set HFP AG
 features and unset HFP AG features
Message-ID: <20200413175833.di53ucocat5tdrke@pali>
References: <20200321195404.fvyku5hmcuqxt7sg@pali>
 <20200413162513.2221-1-pali@kernel.org>
 <20200413162513.2221-2-pali@kernel.org>
 <CABBYNZKneybjWDEddrCXxtzJdGZSY__D7qtPuw25QMLDE9hg4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200413165206.xluhkwi76cfpiv7z@pali>
 <CABBYNZJYj=i4+SemOAST18Jn20Nn03C_NyfB+aBLc5L9Yg11_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200413171722.ilawhisu67onrifn@pali>
 <CABBYNZKFGjsnCnBPyw0WFr_aJ2zaYAjLj81t04S=fXaXD9ac+g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CABBYNZKFGjsnCnBPyw0WFr_aJ2zaYAjLj81t04S=fXaXD9ac+g@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Sender: linux-bluetooth-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Monday 13 April 2020 10:47:04 Luiz Augusto von Dentz wrote:
> Hi Pali,
> 
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 10:17 AM Pali Rohár <pali@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Monday 13 April 2020 09:58:34 Luiz Augusto von Dentz wrote:
> > > Hi Pali,
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 9:52 AM Pali Rohár <pali@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Monday 13 April 2020 09:44:14 Luiz Augusto von Dentz wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 9:25 AM Pali Rohár <pali@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > > > @@ -1750,15 +1758,19 @@ static int ext_disconnect_dev(struct btd_service *service)
> > > > > >  static char *get_hfp_hf_record(struct ext_profile *ext, struct ext_io *l2cap,
> > > > > >                                                         struct ext_io *rfcomm)
> > > > > >  {
> > > > > > +       /* HFP 1.7.2: By default features bitfield is 0b000000 */
> > > > > >         return g_strdup_printf(HFP_HF_RECORD, rfcomm->chan, ext->version,
> > > > > > -                                               ext->name, ext->features);
> > > > > > +                               ext->name,
> > > > > > +                               ext->have_features ? ext->features : 0x0);
> > > > > >  }
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  static char *get_hfp_ag_record(struct ext_profile *ext, struct ext_io *l2cap,
> > > > > >                                                         struct ext_io *rfcomm)
> > > > > >  {
> > > > > > +       /* HFP 1.7.2: By default features bitfield is 0b001001 */
> > > > > >         return g_strdup_printf(HFP_AG_RECORD, rfcomm->chan, ext->version,
> > > > > > -                                               ext->name, ext->features);
> > > > > > +                               ext->name,
> > > > > > +                               ext->have_features ? ext->features : 0x9);
> > > > >
> > > > > I wonder why you didn't just initialize the features wiht 0x9 instead
> > > > > of adding a flag to track it, btw add a define with value 0x09 like
> > > > > HFP_DEFAULT_FEATURES that way it is clearer why we are doing this.
> > > >
> > > > This function get_hfp_ag_record() is for parsing local features. You are
> > > > right that for local features we do not need a flag to track it.
> > > >
> > > > But flag for tracking is needed for parsing remote features. And to have
> > > > unified code for storing local and remote features it is easier to have
> > > > always a flag for checking if features were provided or not.
> > >
> > > Im not following you about the remote features beinf different, I
> > > though both would be could be initialized in the same way and then if
> > > we read a different value from the SDP record we just overwrite it.
> >
> > But in this case we put these default remote features to HFP DBus agent
> > like if they were specified in SDP. Default value is specific for
> > profile version. And if e.g. new HFP version defines a new bit in
> > features with its own default value then HFP DBus agent would not be
> > able to distinguish between state when remote device did not specified
> > any value (as bluez will put there some defaults) and when remote device
> > specified same features as bluez has defined in its current default
> > value.
> 
> Different version may have different defaults but we can initialize
> them correctly.

But we do not know default values for future versions which have not
been released yet. There would be a problem if user run current
bluez daemon e.g. in 5 years when new version of HFP profile would be
released and remote device would use it.

> > Before and also after this change remote features are not send to HFP
> > DBus agent when they were not specified by remote device.
> >
> > After your suggestion HFP DBus agent would not be able to check if
> > remote device provided features or not. And this is I think a
> > regression.
> 
> I don't think we can consider a regression to always provide features,
> besides what would be the reason for the agent to know if the features
> were from the SDP record or they are auto initiliazed?

Autoinitialized for which version? Bluez has currently defined default
values for HFP 1.7. But DBus agent can register HFP profile also for
version 1.5 or also 1.8.

To which value should it be autoinitialized when remote device announce
that is in version 1.8 but does not specify features (= default for
version 1.8 should be used)? The only option which make sense is to not
autoinitiaze this value as version 1.8 was not released yet and now we
do not know what would be the default value.

> I that was
> really necessary Id just dump the whole record as a ServiceRecord
> option and leave it up to the client to parse it.
> 
> > > > I can put these default values in profile-role specific macros e.g.:
> > > >
> > > > #define HFP_AG_DEFAULT_FEATURES 0x09
> > > > #define HFP_HF_DEFAULT_FEATURES 0x00
> > > > #define HSP_HS_DEFAULT_VOLCNTRL "false"
> > >
> > > Don't bother with default that are 0x00/false, we can assume this is
> > > implicit when allocating the memory everything is set to 0 so these
> > > defines wouldn't be needed in the first place.
> > >
> > > > Or do you prefer different names?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Luiz Augusto von Dentz
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Luiz Augusto von Dentz