Return-path: Received: from mail-ew0-f172.google.com ([209.85.219.172]:42490 "EHLO mail-ew0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754604Ab0CDBPg (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Mar 2010 20:15:36 -0500 Subject: Re: Linux Bluetooth Coexistence documentation in general and for ath9k From: Bastien Nocera To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Cc: linux-wireless , linux-bluetooth , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Kevin Hayes\" , \"Dan Tian\"" In-Reply-To: <43e72e891003031643u353c72dcj23bf429363a16ec8@mail.gmail.com> References: <43e72e891003031643u353c72dcj23bf429363a16ec8@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:59:13 +0000 Message-ID: <1267664353.10407.1960.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 16:43 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > Marcel, a question for you below. > > The question of Bluetooth coexistence pops up here, on IRC and on bug > reports quite too often so I've stuffed what I could onto a page with > a few references / code and about ath9k's schemes for BT coexistence, > feel free to extend or correct: > I do wonder if this could be useful to network applets like network > manager/connman. Not really. To me, it sounds like a "make it work" button. The kernel bits of Bluetooth should already have an idea of when a device is connected, so the kernel should be able to "do the right thing". Having options over what "the right thing" is is probably a good idea whilst the kinks are worked out from the default behaviour, but this is not something that should be advertised to users. > The other BT coex schemes are BT specific it seems > and not sure if those devices can expose that information out and > inform userspace of certain events. Cheers