> didn't we say that waiting for #QSS:3 was discarded because it would > take too long, even > 30s?
Yes, but I was thinking about the idea of retrying some commands later when the SIM is ready > I think so, yes. That indicates an earlier error, we don't know what > happened, so we should just return error here as well, IMO. Ok, I'll update the patch then On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 at 19:39 Aleksander Morgado <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Carlo Lobrano <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> So why is current_sms_mem1_storage UNKNOWN? At which point did it > >> fail, if it did? Did it fail doing AT+CPMS? > > > > Correct. AT+CPMS? returns with SIM Busy. It's something that will be > better > > addressed when "delay till #QSS: 3" will be implemented. > > > > didn't we say that waiting for #QSS:3 was discarded because it would > take too long, even > 30s? > > >> I agree that we shouldn't call any CPMS command passing "unknown" as > >> storage, but defaulting to "SM" isn't a good approach either. [...] > >> If it is UNKNOWN because init_current_storages() failed, we should > >> also error out when trying to set_default_storage() > > > > I understand that. So, set_default_storage should return error directly > when > > it finds that mem1 is UNKNOWN. Is that right? > > I think so, yes. That indicates an earlier error, we don't know what > happened, so we should just return error here as well, IMO. > > > -- > Aleksander > https://aleksander.es >
_______________________________________________ ModemManager-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/modemmanager-devel
