Hi João Paulo,

On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:05 PM, João Paulo Rechi Vita
<[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.

I disagree with this as pointed out several times. bluetooth-util
already has a dependecy to BlueZ as opposed to oFono which makes a big
difference. I see no strong argument to merge oFono code before having
a nice split of backends.

Besides, I already proposed a first approach to add the backend
infrastructure so I believe we should be able to have progress quickly
once the BlueZ 5 patchset gets merged.

Cheers,
Mikel
_______________________________________________
pulseaudio-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pulseaudio-discuss

Reply via email to