On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 21:40:49 +0200, "Oliver Neukum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Am Sonntag, 25. September 2005 20:38 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 20:18:07 +0200, "Oliver Neukum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > said: > > > Am Sonntag, 25. September 2005 18:11 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > > > Sep 25 11:16:18 dietrichj chat[3032]: send (ATZ^M) > > > > Sep 25 11:16:19 dietrichj chat[3032]: expect (OK) > > > > Sep 25 11:16:19 dietrichj chat[3032]: ^M > > > > Sep 25 11:16:19 dietrichj chat[3032]: OK > > > > Sep 25 11:16:19 dietrichj chat[3032]: -- got it > > > > Sep 25 11:16:19 dietrichj chat[3032]: send (ATM0DT7290134^M) > > > > Sep 25 11:16:19 dietrichj chat[3032]: expect (CONNECT) > > > > Sep 25 11:16:19 dietrichj chat[3032]: ^M > > > > Sep 25 11:16:19 dietrichj chat[3032]: ATZ^MAT^M > > > > Sep 25 11:16:19 dietrichj chat[3032]: OK^M > > > > Sep 25 11:17:04 dietrichj chat[3032]: alarm > > > > Sep 25 11:17:04 dietrichj chat[3032]: Failed > > > > Sep 25 11:17:04 dietrichj pppd[3031]: Connect script failed > > > > Sep 25 11:17:05 dietrichj pppd[3031]: Exit. > > > > > > Is this repeatable? The second log you sent had a different error. > > > This looks like chat is sending a second ATZ without waiting for > > > the dial command. > > > > When I was preparing my first log, the cdc-acm module did not have > > debugging enabled, and the above error was very repeatable. I have > > seen other errors in the past, so the above is apparently not 100% > > repeatable, but it's definitely the most common error. > > > > Then after I enabled debugging today, I only got the above ATZ^MAT^M > > error once. All the other tests of connecting and disconnecting gave > > me the NO CARRIER error that I sent in the second log. > > > > I can send the log of the one time the ATZ^MAT^M happened with debugging > > enabled, if that would be helpful. > > Just a hunch and probably irrelevant, but please try without "M0" in > the dialing string. Maybe the interpreter in the modem is not very good.
Made no difference. Now I have a hunch that might help. Yesterday I came across this bug report: http://bugs.debian.org/86076 It looks like that person had a problem very similar to mine. It would make sense if the modem returns OK or NO CARRIER on disconnect, and the driver doesn't deal with it properly, so it is still there in the modem. Then when I try to connect the next time, the line '' ATZ expects nothing and sends ATZ, but instead, there is a OK or NO CARRIER waiting, which would give the two errors I sent in the two logs at the beginning of this thread. My phone line went dead yesterday afternoon, so I haven't had a chance to try the workaround mentioned in the debian bug, but I do know that my modem worked in 2.6.7 without any workaround. Here's hoping that we'll eventually get to the bottom of this! Thanks for your help, James -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.fastmail.fm - mmm... Fastmail... ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php _______________________________________________ linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
