From: Cliff L. B. <cl...@bi...> - 2006-06-26 21:11:57
|
So, ever since I reflashed my shiny new 400xm-bt, Bluetooth performance has sucked. Specifically, RFCOMM has sucked (it's the only service I'm using), and hcitool inq/scan seems suspiciously slow. RFCOMM echo latencies sometimes approach two seconds in a terminal session -- and god forbid I should try file transfer. It's clear to me that something was tweaked on my factory image that I've managed to hose in my buildroot. I've done the following: 1. Fixed the BTUART speed back to 115200 (both start and normal) 2. Tried changing the type to 'ericsson' from 'gumstix' (the factory image used ericsson) 3. Done some random poking in the bluetooth configuration files 4. Tried switching off everything but RFCOMM #1 is necessary to get BT up; #2 seems to spectacularly hose things. RFCOMM is still slow. I could hop back to the factory image, I suppose, but that's hardly a solution... -Cliff L. Biffle |
From: Dave H. <dhy...@gm...> - 2006-06-26 21:25:54
|
Hi Cliff, On 6/26/06, Cliff L. Biffle <cl...@bi...> wrote: > So, ever since I reflashed my shiny new 400xm-bt, Bluetooth > performance has sucked. > > Specifically, RFCOMM has sucked (it's the only service I'm using), > and hcitool inq/scan seems suspiciously slow. RFCOMM echo latencies > sometimes approach two seconds in a terminal session -- and god > forbid I should try file transfer. > > It's clear to me that something was tweaked on my factory image that > I've managed to hose in my buildroot. I've done the following: > 1. Fixed the BTUART speed back to 115200 (both start and normal) > 2. Tried changing the type to 'ericsson' from 'gumstix' (the factory > image used ericsson) > 3. Done some random poking in the bluetooth configuration files > 4. Tried switching off everything but RFCOMM > > #1 is necessary to get BT up; #2 seems to spectacularly hose things. > RFCOMM is still slow. > > I could hop back to the factory image, I suppose, but that's hardly a > solution... I seem to recall that the factory image uses HWUART instead of BTUART. -- Dave Hylands Vancouver, BC, Canada http://www.DaveHylands.com/ |
From: Cliff L. B. <cl...@bi...> - 2006-06-26 21:32:41
|
On Jun 26, 2006, at 2:25 PM, Dave Hylands wrote: > I seem to recall that the factory image uses HWUART instead of BTUART. Yes, that's correct; HWUART on the BT pins. So, take my original message, and s/BTUART/HWUART/g; it was a typo. :-) -Cliff L. Biffle |