On Do, 2011-08-04 at 16:29 +0200, Chris Kühl wrote:
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Patrick Ohly
> On Mi, 2011-08-03 at 17:02 +0200, Chris Kühl wrote:
>> I've been working on retrieving the immutable vendor and product id
>> provided by the Bluetooth Device ID profile (DIP). See my
>> bluetooth-device-id branch for what's been pushed so far.
>> Being that we now have a means of getting reliable device information
>> it seems to me that in the cases where this information was
>> attainable, a matching score is no longer needed. If the fingerprint
>> matches the product name from the look-up table exactly (and it will
>> because we've created the lookup table and the template fingerprints)
>> we suggest just that one template instead of several. If we didn't get
>> this product name from the look-up table then everything should behave
>> as normal because we can't trust the user-modifiable device name
>> Does this sound reasonable or are there other reasons you'd want more
>> than one template to choose from even when you're sure which device
>> you're dealing with?
> What about a Sony Ericcson phone which unknown product ID? We have two
> templates for vendor=Sony Ericsson.
In this case it would work just as before. If the device supports the
Device ID profile but it's not in our look-up table of known devices
then we don't use it. We need the look-up table to get the product
I was working based on the assumption that our look-up table of devices
and the corresponding entries in the templates will be very small.
Where would we get a full list of product IDs for all Nokia phones ever
published, for example? And even if we could get such a list, do we add
all of those names to the Nokia template, without confirmation that it
really works? As you said, we shouldn't.
So the more realistic outcome is that we have to make decisions based on
just the vendor name.
There are 2 things that have to happen for the matching score to be
1) The device needs to be in the look-up table.
2) The template needs to have a fingerprint that matches the product
string from the look-up table exactly. If we or the user has added it
here then this should be the template to use.
If both are not fulfilled then we do as we've been doing.
Okay. In that case the code needs to use the vendor name from the Device
ID profile instead of the user-assigned device name in the traditional
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly
The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.