Hi! Iain,


From: Iain Hibbert <plunky@rya-online.net>
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 18:13:37 +0100 (BST)

> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007, KIYOHARA Takashi wrote:
> 
> > From: Iain Hibbert <plunky@rya-online.net>
> > Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:58:43 +0100 (BST)

> > > In general, I was thinking before that bt3c(4) (and now this) is basically
> > > a serial card, and maybe it would be better to have them present as a
> > > serial interface, then apply the btuart(4) line discipline to interface to
> > > the bluetooth stack. I'm not sure if it would actually save much code
> > > though, what do you think?
> >
> > I don't think.  Those cards are export different registers.
> 
> yeah, I didn't think it through all the way but my thought was that
> currently  it goes like
> 
> 	bt3c->hci
> 	btbc->hci
> 	com->btuart->hci
> 
> but it could be
> 
> 	bt3c->com
> 	btbc->com
> 	com->btuart->hci
> 
> which would mean that the code for extracting bluetooth packets from a
> serial stream is only in one place (btuart) instead of three. However,
> maybe this code is not too big in any case.

hmm...  Does com mean new btcom?
Can btuart be operated?  Is bcsp a front of com?

      bcsp->com  ?

If you have the good plan, it`s up to you.

Thanks,
--
kiyohara