Linux usage of "blueZ" - hierarchy ?
by jan128 from LinuxQuestions.org on (#5BKHE)
It is a common statement "Linux kernel includes bluetooth".
The above is sometime "clarified" with " (Linux kernel) uses "blueZ" official bluetooth stack".
Now IMHO "blueZ" " official bluetooth stack" is very poorly documented and practically abandoned by original developers. (Just saying)
Detailed study of "blueZ" ( been there , done that ) indicates it is not original code , but it is actually build "on top" of something called "HCI".
In my case I have yet another layer of "code" - QtCreator IDE with Qt classes based on "blueZ".
My question to the forum
would it make more sense to bypass all these layers and go back to using plain HCI?
I have successfully implemented the "hci" approach when I started messing with bluetooth using this document
https://people.csail.mit.edu/albert/...ntro/c404.html
To be sure - I am asking for experienced opinions, not for speculations nor not code solution.
Cheers
The above is sometime "clarified" with " (Linux kernel) uses "blueZ" official bluetooth stack".
Now IMHO "blueZ" " official bluetooth stack" is very poorly documented and practically abandoned by original developers. (Just saying)
Detailed study of "blueZ" ( been there , done that ) indicates it is not original code , but it is actually build "on top" of something called "HCI".
In my case I have yet another layer of "code" - QtCreator IDE with Qt classes based on "blueZ".
My question to the forum
would it make more sense to bypass all these layers and go back to using plain HCI?
I have successfully implemented the "hci" approach when I started messing with bluetooth using this document
https://people.csail.mit.edu/albert/...ntro/c404.html
To be sure - I am asking for experienced opinions, not for speculations nor not code solution.
Cheers