Messages in this thread | | | From | "Savoy, Pavan" <> | Date | Sat, 13 Nov 2010 13:12:34 +0530 | Subject | RE: shared transport: only for TI chips? |
| |
certainly Vitaly. I would welcome any ideas which can make it more generic, provided there is no drastic change in the way we do stuff currently (as in say firmware download from kernel space, LL handling etc..).
I did see similar code for on such MFD device from ST-ericsson for a similar BT, FM GPS based device and wanted to somehow make work TI-ST work for it, unfortunately didn't hear encouraging words from developers from that driver.
So, yes, I welcome ideas and let's see how best we can implement them... shoot them away...
---------------------- Thanks & Regards, Pavan Savoy | x0099669 ________________________________________ From: Vitaly Wool [vitalywool@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2010 1:47 AM To: Savoy, Pavan Cc: LKML Subject: shared transport: only for TI chips?
Hi Pavan,
I've been looking closely at the shared transport implementation to figure out how applicable it is for similar solutions from other vendors. My current impression is, this the applicability is very poor. For instance, you define the firmware name by querying the chip in a specific manner. Also, your implementation presumes the chip implements LL protocol for Bluetooth power saving which might not at all be the case for other vendors' chips. That's kind of okay as long as you don't care about power saving; but if you have to support some other power saving protocol, you're screwed -- there's no such opportunity in the current ST core.
So the question is, are you at all interested in making the core generic? I'm ready to come up with some ideas on that if the answer is positive :)
And if not, we need to consider bringing in something more generic as there already are several vendors that use Bluetooth for command encapsulation on similar multi-functional chips.
Thanks, Vitaly
| |