Re: TINI wireless link - IR or RF?

Jim,

Yeah you're absolutely right the serial adapter just exposes the Host Controler
Interface (HCI) of the BT chip. In on-board or cf/pcmcia based BT adapters this
HCI is exposed as an internal UART, which with the right driver registers
itself as a COM port with the OS. In case of the TINI it's just easier to use a
serial dongel then to engineer a daughter board with an UART interface, but the
result is pretty much the same and allows much more then just the "dumb" serial
dongels Bruce mentioned.

A bit of good news, a friend of mine at my old university decided to pickup and
complete the stack. I'm expecting a big update release in late August or early
Sept. RFCOMM will be completed and hopefully some other things as well.

I apologize for not keeping up with this project as much as I should. But I'm
pretty busy between work and planning my wedding. Just thought I'd let you know
that the project isn't dead yet.

Chris




Quoting Jim Redman <jredman-wAA+5nrAsfVWk0Htik3J/[email protected]>:

> Bruce,
> 
> On 06/29/04 17:23:21, Bruce Boyes wrote:
> > Quoting Jim Redman <jredman-wAA+5nrAsfVWk0Htik3J/[email protected]>:
> > > I have no idea what Christian Lorenz used to test the stack on the
> > > TINI.  The CF (or PCMCIA) cards that he lists on his site register
> > > themselves as serial ports and the stack is based on javacomm.
> > > There are BT adapters with a DB9 which should work.
> 
> > There you go. That's only a very uninteresting, point to point
> > hardcoded serial adapter only version of BT.
> 
> I think that there's some confusion here.  The BT adapters identify  
> themselves as COM ports, but that doesn't mean they're restricted to,  
> say, just the RFCOMM protocol.  The full BT stack is available through  
> the interface (via the "H4 (UART) HCI Transport Specification"?).   
> They're much more than point-to-point, it's most of the JSR-82  
> implementation.  Ironically, it's missing RFCOMM (the point-to-point  
> serial emulator), which is the protocol of interest to me.
> 
> These are the same cards as used by, for example, BlueZ for Linux.   
> They also have Windows support you can use them as part of any BT  
> network.
> 
> The only restiction of using a UART as the interface is that the speed  
> of the BT interface is throttled to the maximum speed supported by the  
> UART, typical 200K baud+.
> 
> (There are some RFCOMM only cards, for example IONetwork's WaveSpeed).
> 
> > I don't own a single BT device. Hmmm, I wonder why? Maybe it's that
> > there is nothing useful to do with it?
> 
> My particular application is to put a BT adapter on a bunch of PLCs and  
> so use, say, an IPAQ to interface to the PLCs.  You can walk up to a  
> remote installation and communicate without opening the cabinet.   
> There's a saving here since you can do a "drive-by" without actually  
> getting out of a vehicle.
> 
> The problem is that the cost of, eg 802.11, is about the same as BT.   
> So for application like this it's hard to justify why it should be BT  
> and not wireless ethernet.  The modern IPAQ's have both 802.11b and BT,  
> I haven't even tried the BT adapter yet.
> 
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jim Redman
> (505) 662 5156 x85
> http://www.ergotech.com
> 



_______________________________________________
TINI mailing list
TINI-6tN4nzCoH/[email protected]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, edit your profile, or see list archives:
http://lists.dalsemi.com/mailman/listinfo/tini