On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 4:17 AM, Mikel Astiz <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi João Paulo,
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 9:13 PM, João Paulo Rechi Vita
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 7:20 AM, Luiz Augusto von Dentz
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Hi Mikel,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Mikel Astiz <[email protected]> 
>>> wrote:
>>>> From: Mikel Astiz <[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>> Resending v3 with a small change in patch 3/16, where the "Name" property 
>>>> of org.bluez.Device1 is now considered as optional.
>>>>
>>>> This version is intended for the next branch since it depends on 
>>>> module-bluetooth-device not making use of device->name, which could now be 
>>>> potentially NULL.
>>>>
>>>> Note that the last 5 patches are somewhat controversial (see below) and it 
>>>> might therefore be desireable to keep them on hold.
>>>>
>>>> From previous cover-letter:
>>>>
>>>> The discussion raised by João Paulo is whether the HSP/HFP endpoint should 
>>>> be registered or not, and the few associated features implemented. Luiz 
>>>> suggested it'd be good in any case to have the patches for reference, so 
>>>> I'm sending the full patchset (including the HSP/HFP part) reworked in a 
>>>> way that such code is grouped in the end (starting with v3 12/16).
>>>>
>>>> Mikel Astiz (15):
>>>>   bluetooth: Detect BlueZ 5
>>>>   bluetooth: Parse the tree returned by ObjectManager
>>>>   bluetooth: Support ObjectManager interface add/remove
>>>>   bluetooth: Support Properties.PropertiesChanged signal
>>>>   bluetooth: BlueZ 5 interface rename to org.bluez.MediaEndpoint1
>>>>   bluetooth: BlueZ 5 interface rename to org.bluez.Media1
>>>>   bluetooth: BlueZ 5 interface rename to org.bluez.MediaTransport1
>>>>   bluetooth: Parse media transport's properties
>>>>   bluetooth: Support media transport's State property
>>>>   bluetooth: Update to new BlueZ 5 transport acquire/release API
>>>>   bluetooth: Support transport auto-release
>>>>   bluetooth: Register HSP/HFP endpoints in BlueZ 5 Media API
>>>>   bluetooth: Handle transports configured before UUID received
>>>>   bluetooth: Update to new property setter API in BlueZ 5
>>>>   bluetooth: Update to volume control in BlueZ 5
>>>>
>>>> Vinicius Costa Gomes (1):
>>>>   bluetooth: Add HFP 1.6 codec ID
>>>>
>>>>  src/modules/bluetooth/bluetooth-util.c          | 568 
>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>>>  src/modules/bluetooth/module-bluetooth-device.c |   8 +-
>>>>  2 files changed, 521 insertions(+), 55 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 1.8.1.4
>>>
>>> Ack from my side.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> As I mentioned before, if we want to split transport backends BlueZ 4
>> and BlueZ 5 should be implemented as backends as well. I don't see the
>> point of having only oFono as a separate backend.
>
> The point is just practical: this patchset has been around for quite a
> while a several people have reviewed and tested it.
>
> I agree that the backend-specific code of both BlueZ 4 and 5 could be
> moved somewhere outside bluetooth-util, but I don't find it critical.
> It's definitely not comparable to the need to separate the oFono
> backend. In a similar way, we shouldn't necessarily separate the oFono
> backend from ofono-util, which could potentially support other
> functionality beyond the backend itself (e.g. call-state tracking).
>
> So being pragmatic and in order to avoid more delays, I insist on
> merging this patchset first and then discussing further steps.
>

If so I think we should treat the oFono patches in the same way, merge
it first and separate it later, which was what I preferred in the
first place.

--
João Paulo Rechi Vita
http://about.me/jprvita
_______________________________________________
pulseaudio-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pulseaudio-discuss

Reply via email to