On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, Iain Hibbert wrote:

> On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, Stephen Borrill wrote:
>
>> + +	if (type->aue_flags & UBT) {
>> +		usb_device_descriptor_t *dd;
>> +		dd = usbd_get_device_descriptor(uaa->device);
>> +		if (dd != NULL
>> +		    && dd->bDeviceClass == UDCLASS_WIRELESS
>> +		    && dd->bDeviceSubClass == UDSUBCLASS_RF
>> +		    && dd->bDeviceProtocol == UDPROTO_BLUETOOTH)
>> +			return (UMATCH_NONE);
>
> Just out of interest (I'm not sure I know much about it :), ubt uses the
> interface descriptor to match, whereas you are using the device
> descriptor.. is this significant?

aue explicity returns UMATCH_NONE if an interface is defined, so 
that's why I switched to

> would it be more useful (Well, not sure that many manufacturers re-use
> product IDs) to discard 'not ethernet' rather than 'bluetooth'?

Yes, I think it would, but we don't have a UDPROTO_ETHERNET definition, 
for example. I'm just composing an email to Jason about that. :-)

> (I'm concerned that bluetooth is getting a bad rep :)

Not at all, I'm very impressed with how well it's all working. I even 
managed to remotely crash my phone with sdpquery :-)

-- 
Stephen