+1 Sounds good.
> On Jan 24, 2017, at 2:53 PM, Christopher Collins <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 12:40:04PM -0800, will sanfilippo wrote: >> I am not sure I have any intelligent comments on this, but that has never >> stopped me from commenting in the past, so… > > No worries. Thanks for the feedback! > >> >> I think a byte buffer interface is fine as long as you have helper functions >> to create that buffer. Having folks have to figure out how to create an >> advertisement without any helper functions would be a bad idea (imho). >> >> I am not sure I completely understand your example re:Tx Power Level. Would >> this field still get added by the host or would there be a helper function >> that a developer could call to add the Tx Power Level field to the >> advertisement? > > The host wouldn't modify the advertising data at all. If the > application wants to advertise the tx power level, it would need to > arrange for it to be written to the byte buffer. If using the helper > function, the application would write the correct value to the > tx_pwr_lvl field in the ble_hs_adv_fields struct before converting the > struct to a byte array. The application would either "just know" the > correct value, or it would query the host prior to building the > advertising data buffer. > > Chris
