Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 15:40:52 -0800 From: Maksim Yevmenkin <myevmenk@exodus.net> To: Sam Leffler <sam@errno.com> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG, "Long, Scott" <Scott_Long@adaptec.com>, re@FreeBSD.ORG, Murray Stokely <murray@freebsdmall.com> Subject: Re: Bluetooth code Message-ID: <3DCAFA04.7B605725@exodus.net> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0211071328530.5860-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> <038501c286b2$5efb1890$52557f42@errno.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Sam, > > On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Sam Leffler wrote: > > > A bluetooth implementation that was not > > > tied to netgraph would be preferrable as freebsd users would get the > > > benefits of additional (non-freebsd users) working with the code. > > > > > > > NetBSD have their own bluetooth code that goes in /sys/dev/bluetooth. > > You are free to port that when (if) it's ready, in fact > > we are using netgraph/bluetooth specifically to not collide with that. > > > > <...netgraph PR deleted...> > > > > I don't want to see multiple instances of Bluetooth support in the system. > As you noted there's a netbsd implementation already. Having multiple > incompatible implementations of the same protocol stack is silly. If this > one is better than the netbsd one then great, but I want to see answers to > these questions. i'm not aware of *any* *working* Bluetooth code for the NetBSD. all i can see is /dev/bluetooth directory with some *very* basic code. no HCI support, no L2CAP support, even no drivers for USB and/or serial based Bluetooth cards. all i can say is that there is *work in progress*. its quite different from "implementation". > Using netgraph for prototyping is fine. Using it for a final version means > only freebsd users can make use of it. There aren't enough *bsd users > around to not _TRY_ to get everyone sharing code. Perhaps you should port > netgraph to other bsd's? i personally think that porting Netgraph (especially -stable version) will be easy thing to do. in fact, i probably will need to port my code back to -stable Netgraph version anyway. few people actually wanted version for -stable. > > > It's unclear to me how this support is used. There are no user-level > > > applications that make use of it and I don't recognize existing > applications > > > that could use it. I suggest that w/o a "real user" adding this stuff > to > > > the system is premature. > > > > There is no point in user apps until there is kernel support. > > it's a chicken and egg thing and I'd like to break the cycle > > by adding this code now. > > > > No, this is not a chicken and egg problem. If the bluetooth support is > useful then it must be useful for something. If there's nothing users can > do with the support then it'll languish. You've already noted this stuff is > loadable as modules so there is no barrier to the code coming in later or > being maintained separately. but you *can* use it now. you *can* run PPP over Bluetooth and, for example, browse Internet from the Bluetooth enabled PDA. you *can* use your laptop to dial out via Bluetooth enabled cell phone and then again run PPP. this is one of the things Bluetooth was designed for. like i said soon you will be able to do even more, i.e. transfer files, business cards etc via OBEX. and as soon as there is in-kernel RFCOMM implementation *any* legacy application that uses serial ports will be able to take advantage of Bluetooth *without* any changes. what people asked so far is 1) is to be able to connect to local access point via Bluetooth, i.e. as soon as user comes into RF proximity PPP link gets established and away you go - read mail, print, transfer files (via FTP or whatever) etc. 2) get stuff on/off the cell phones, PDA etc. via Bluetooth. pictures, address books, etc. actually, i'm planing to get one of the Bluetooth-enabled cell phones to see what i can do with it :) > As Maksim noted however there is an OBEX server coming soon. _THIS_ is > justification for having the support in the kernel. > > I like this work. I think it deserves inclusion in the system somewhere. > I'm not keen on it being tied to netgraph but undoing that is obviously > major work. What I'd most like to understand is how it compares to the > netbsd implementation and if it's going to be actively used and maintained. thanks, but then again the code in NetBSD is hardly an implementation. take a look for yourself. personally i'm all 100% for shared *BSD Bluetooth stack. i *do not* insist on my implementation and gladly will donate my free time to work on the shared code. that is what i told to Lennart Augustsson. thanks, max To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3DCAFA04.7B605725>