[lkml]   [2010]   [Dec]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 5/9] mfd: Add UART support for the ST-Ericsson CG2900.

> Well, from what I can see LL is an extension of the H4, basically it
> adds sleep mode handling in a vendor specific way to the normal H4
> protocol. So it is also based on the hci_h4 just as our file is. But
> our file has basically nothing in common with what has been for the LL
> file. We don't support any of the LL sleep commands for example.
> So if I would make a driver for a combo chip supporting LL, I would
> either modify the existing hci_ll.c or I would make a new file based
> on hci_ll.c. There is not much you could really reuse from our new
> file. Basically it would be the handling of any common channels, so if
> you would for example have the same specification of FM and GPS you
> could maybe save around 20 lines of common code, but you would
> probably have to add a lot of more code just to keep the solution
> generic.

Right, but this gives me the hard time seeing how your implementation
is applicable to other multi-functional chips with similar

> One major difference is also that hci_ll never changes baud rate or
> other settings. I assume that is done from hciattach during startup
> instead. But we cannot run with that since we have to shut down the
> chip when no user is connected in order to save power. This means that
> we have to add vendor specific commands in order to for example set
> baud rate. And then you run into these vendor specific problems. If
> there would be a standardized specification on how to set baud rate
> and how to put chip in sleep I assume things could be solved
> differently, but that is not the case.

Again, there are at least TI and Broadcom chips that support HCI_LL
and if they were to use your implementation of the core, they would
have had to add 2 more implementations of the corresponding line
discipline driver.

> As a quick answer to your question: that would depend on the
> difference between the different controllers, I guess. But CG2900
> doesn't support the LL protocol so it is not an issue for that.

Right, but if you are only aiming cg2000, why would you create a
framework for that? I initially thought your solution was generic
enough to handle other "many-in-one" Bluetooth chips but I'm
completely unsure about that now.


 \ /
  Last update: 2010-12-06 13:29    [W:0.097 / U:1.520 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site