(moved from source-changes)

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006, Quentin Garnier wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 08:13:38PM +0100, Iain Hibbert wrote:
> > On Sun, 20 Aug 2006, Quentin Garnier wrote:
> >
> > > You know, you just made a very good point why we'd want to get rid of
> > > hard-coded limits.
> >
> > I see what you say, but its not exactly the 640k limit - this is a
> > configuration option that is easily changed by advanced users..  The
> > GENERIC config cannot be everything to everybody
>
> Yeah but the example you gave needs 5 devices :)

I'm not trying to argue against your point especially because its a valid
one, but you are not counting right - I suggested 3 devices (keyboard,
mouse & headset) would be enough for a 1 user system with 1 spare which I
think covers most setups where somebody wants to use bluetooth with what
is currently possible.

> > I will have to think about this some though, because it would throw up
> > other issues (currently, the stored configuration is also based around the
> > btdevN and I would have to redesign it)
>
> We have a very small window of opportunity to make things right before
> 4.0_BETA is too advanced so we could forget about binary compatibility.
> Very soon we'd have to have compatibility support...

True, although the direction I think it should go does not necessarily
introduce binary incompatibility.

I would like to keep /dev/btdevN, though extend them such that you can
attach more than one device. Each btdevN would correspond to a bluetooth
controller rather than a pseudo-device. The BTDEV_ATTACH ioctl remains the
same, it passes a plist, the contents of which I think could also remain
the same.

I think the only incompatibility would be that where previously you
attached devices at btdev0, btdev1 & btdev2, you would have to tweak the
config a little and attach them at btdev0 (if you only had one
controller).

thoughts?

iain