Re: btuart and SOCKET Bluetooth CF

[KIYOHARA Takashi <kiyohara%kk.iij4u.or.jp@localhost>]

Hi! Iain,


From: Iain Hibbert <plunky%rya-online.net@localhost>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:36:39 +0000 (GMT)

> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010, KIYOHARA Takashi wrote:

> > I apologizes for insufficient explanation.  I want to call btuartioctl()
> > for NOKIA DTL.  Therefore, it is necessary to return btuart.h removed
> > before.  (btuart.h v1.4)
> 
> what extra do you need to control with the ioctl() ?
> 
> (I think your direction is wrong and it may be unnecessary - see below)
> 
> > > I think there is some specialist 'nokia' control packets possible with
> > > this protocol, do we need to use them during the operation of the device?
> > > (in setup, the btattach module can send/recv what it likes..)
> >
> > NOKIA DTL always need btuart_dtl_header for all packet. However it not
> > need process for setup.  It detect clock speed automatically perhaps.
> > I could operate 9600 and 115200.
> >
> >   # btattach -f /dev/tty01 (9600|115200)
> 
> my thought is that for example, add
> 
> --- btattach.c        6 Dec 2009 12:55:46 -0000       1.5
> +++ btattach.c        19 Jan 2010 12:23:03 -0000
> @@ -97,6 +97,12 @@
>       .speed = B9600,
>      },
>      {
> +     .name = "dtl",
> +     .line = "btdtl",
> +     .descr = "Nokia DTL-1/4",
> +     .speed = B115200,
> +    },
> +    {
>       .name = "ericsson",
>       .line = "btuart",
>       .descr = "Ericsson based modules",

> and the "btdtl" line driver handles accumulating the packets in the
> correct manner and passing it to the netbt stack.  I think btuart.c is
> unnecesssary for this device to work? The protocol used is different..

In my opinion, I think that NOKIA DTL is subspecies of btuart(H4). This
header is only a little different.  Therefore, I feel that it is strange
to prepare a line discipline new different for NOKIA DTL.

Thanks,
--
kiyohara