merging #BluetoothMesh into #SoftDevice ?

[vikrant8051]

I think instead of releasing separate SDK for #BluetoothMesh, Nordic Semiconductor should merge #BluetoothMesh into #SoftDevice. Is it possible ?

If yes, then we can even add support for all Models defined by Bluetooth_SIG in it.

Firmware app developer will only enable feature of MESH & required Models using preprocessor like

#define Bluetooth_Mesh  
#define GEN_ONOFF_SRV_MODEL  
#define GEN_ONOFF_CLI_MODEL  
#define GEN_LEVEL_SRV_MODEL ...etc....etc...  

Then internally all functions within every Model (which are part of #SoftDevice) will transfer control to one function let's say foo(model, ctx, buf, OPCODE).

With foo() Firmware app developer could do whatever he wants like ......

void foo(struct bt_mesh_model *model, struct bt_mesh_msg_ctx *ctx, struct net_buf_simple *buf, uint16_t opcode)
{
	switch(opcode)
	{

		case 0x8201:	//GEN_ONOFF_SRV_GET
  
                                       // firmware App's Logic

                                      break;

		case 0x8203:	//GEN_ONOFF_SRV_UNACK

                                      // firmware App's Logic
                        
                                      beak;
                  
                :
                :
     }
 }

Thank You !!

Note : my foo() is inspired from Zephyr OS implementation.

[ovrebekk]

Hi

We don't have any plans to merge the mesh library with the SoftDevice.

One problem with this, as endnode commented, is that it would increase the size of the SoftDevice. Since the SoftDevice is a pre-compiled and pre-linked library, you are not able to optimize out functionality that you don't use.

As it is today it is relatively little work to remove the link to the SoftDevice completely, so that you can use Bluetooth mesh and get away with a considerably lower flash requirement.

Another drawback of putting it into the SoftDevice is that the Bluetooth mesh would be held back by the SoftDevice release schedule. Today Bluetooth mesh is developed by a separate team, and can be updated independently of the SoftDevice.

In regards to putting models or services into the stack itself, this is not the way Bluetooth low energy is intended to work. The idea with BLE is that you can easily redefine or add new models/services in the application space, without having to wait for the stack provider to include new models/services.

Best regards
Torbjørn Øvrebekk

[leonwj]

Hello vikrant8051,

(1/3) Just to add... whilst I appreciate your enthusiasm, I believe that you're letting it get ahead of the logical side of things. As endnode and Torbjørn have pointed out, there are many Nordic BLE developers who would not like to see the extra 'bloat' of mesh added to the softdevice. Inversely, there will be some proponents of the SIG 'flooding' mesh who will feel that they don't need the full softdevice stack and could call for a slimmed down version of that. Given that the Bluetooth SIG have not ruled out a possible 'routing' mesh standard in the future, I believe that Nordic have struck the right balance. i.e. provide the softdevice 'as is' and run the current implementation of Bluetooth mesh on top of that. This also enables the future possibility of running other mesh stack implementations. And do all this, whilst providing 'best-of-breed' SoCs to run them on.