Return-Path: Message-ID: <40323EC2.8080203@csr.com> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 16:18:10 +0000 From: Steven Singer MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Marcel Holtmann CC: grpmind+bluez.users@boromir.vpop.net, BlueZ Mailing List Subject: Re: [Bluez-users] How to configure a 723kbps connection? References: <200402171142.i1HBgRV5023132@mail.holtmann.net> <1077018777.2841.5.camel@pegasus> In-Reply-To: <1077018777.2841.5.camel@pegasus> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" List-ID: Marcel Holtmann wrote: > Matt wrote: >> # hcitool rssi 00:04:3E:81:90:E0 >> RSSI return value: 0 >> # hcitool lq 00:04:3E:81:90:E0 >> Link quality: 255 >> # hcitool tpl 00:04:3E:81:90:E0 >> Current transmit power level: -8 >> >> >> Does all this mean that my ipaq has a slow UART? > > No, because the link quality and the RSSI has nothing to do with the > choosen packet type. Marcel, I don't think this is what Matt meant. I think he was asking that given that the link quality and power levels are good and given that he can't get more that 265 kbps regardless of packet type, is it likely that he's being limited by some component of the system other than the Bluetooth link - such as the UART baud rate on the Ipaq. Is there an easy way to find out what baud rate the Ipaq is using? That would answer the question straight away. 265 kbps over the air is equivalent to roughly 350 kbps over the UART (assuming one start bit, one stop bit, no parity and large HCI packets). Also, although you're right that the RSSI has nothing to do with the chosen packet type, the link quality has a big effect. As the link quality falls, devices will tend to switch automatically from DH packets to the more robust DM packets. - Steven -- ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com **********************************************************************