Thanks a million for all your work on this:
it means I'll probably be running plan9 seriously soon:-).
To be selfish for a moment ...
Presumably there's still a medium sized asteroid of pain to go through
to get something like,
say, my bluetooth stereo-phones+headset(A2DP/AVRCP/... ... ...)
working sensibly?
Oh, and we'll need more drivers which will need to be more complex and
more efficient and less buggy
while driving more, and more divergent hardware which is becoming ever
more complex and bigger and buggier,
of course.
OTOH, of course, we do at least have the wonderfully clean plan9 view
of all this contortionous mess,
so at least when I need to push an avrcp driver onto my stack,
I can manipulate and see the hideous vipers nest in userland and prod
it with rc.
Plus, of course, it'll be totally dandy for connecting my plan9
wristputer to my plan9 briefcase.
Well done again.
D
On 23 Sep 2009, at 15:48, Richard Miller wrote:
A very superficial glance a long time ago suggested that it was a
twisty little maze of de-facto and de-vulgus standards.
i.e. the death of a thousand committees.
The core standard (defining the communication layers) is actually
not too bad, compared to some I've had to look at. It's huge, but
a lot of it is describing low-level radio stuff (below the hci layer)
which your bluetooth chip takes care of.
All the "profiles" (application layers) have their own separate
standards documents, and there indeed is a morass of (non)design
by committee.
Then there's the hardware ...
Maybe I was lucky, but my random choice of development hardware
(a cheap generic usb dongle with a CSR chip) has seemed to behave
just as the spec says. Of course there have been surprises, but
so far these have been where the spec was ambiguous and my guess
didn't match the firmware designer's guess.
