Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-bluetooth-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200713201441.235959-1-sonnysasaka@chromium.org>
In-Reply-To: <20200713201441.235959-1-sonnysasaka@chromium.org>
From:   Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 13 Jul 2020 13:35:26 -0700
Message-ID: <CABBYNZJ+7SFRra4S890bv+_oCbUXHPexVmxvGS2pAzdnHyhJXw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH BlueZ 0/3] Per-device option to enable/disable internal profiles
To:     Sonny Sasaka <sonnysasaka@chromium.org>
Cc:     linux-bluetooth-@vger.kernel.org,
        "linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org" <linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-bluetooth-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Sonny,

On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 1:18 PM Sonny Sasaka <sonnysasaka@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> This patch series adds a mechanism for clients to choose whether to
> enable BlueZ internal profiles (e.g. A2DP, Battery) for specific
> devices.
>
> The motivation behind this feature is that some applications (e.g. Web
> Bluetooth or Android apps) need to have control over all remove GATT
> services, like Battery service. With "battery" plugin being enabled on
> BlueZ, it becomes not possible for those apps to work properly because
> BlueZ "hides" the Battery-related attributes from its GATT Client API.
> Disabling the "battery" plugin won't solve the problem either, since we
> do also need to enable the plugin so that we can use org.bluez.Battery1
> API.
>
> The solution that we propose is that clients can choose whether to
> enable internal profiles for each device. Clients know when to enable
> internal profiles (such as when a user chooses to pair/connect via a UI)
> and when to disable internal profiles (such as when the connection is
> initiated by a generic application).

I wonder if it is not better to just have a flag indicating if the
profile shall claim exclusive access (such as GAP and GATT services),
so profiles that don't set that will have the services exposed so for
battery we can probably just have it exposed by default since it
doesn't appear to would be any conflicts on having it exposed.

> Sonny Sasaka (3):
>   doc: Add "AllowInternalProfiles" property to org.bluez.Device1
>   device: Add "AllowInternalProfiles" property to org.bluez.Device1
>   client: Add set-allow-internal-profiles command
>
>  client/main.c      | 38 ++++++++++++++++++
>  doc/device-api.txt | 13 +++++++
>  src/device.c       | 96 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  src/hcid.h         |  2 +
>  src/main.c         | 10 +++++
>  src/main.conf      |  4 ++
>  6 files changed, 163 insertions(+)
>
> --
> 2.26.2
>


-- 
Luiz Augusto von Dentz