On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 12:40 PM Bjørn Mork <bj...@mork.no> wrote: > > Aleksander Morgado <aleksan...@aleksander.es> writes: > > > And an additional question I have; what if we start using QMAP also > > for qmi_wwan based modems that support it? I think it would be very > > similar to your current needs with QRTR/IPA, right? See > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libqmi-devel/2018-July/002935.html > > Maybe we can setup a common API in libqmi that brings up the muxed > > network interfaces for both cases in a common way? > > Yes, that exact thought stroke me as well while skimming through this > discussion. It would be nice if the API could abstract away the > differences wrt adding network devices etc, and just present a common > muxing API.
I haven't personally dealt with QMAP so I'm not really sure what's going on there. The linked discussion does suggest a similar architecture of one "real" net interface (wwan0 for QMAP, rmnet_ipa0 for QRTR/IPA) over which several "virtual" net ports are overlaid (qmimuxN for QMAP, rmnet_dataN for QRTR/IPA). Neither case would deal with QMI directly outside of the Bind Mux Data Port message though, as far as I can tell. So I'm not sure if this is an argument for keeping it in libqmi or not. > Bjørn _______________________________________________ ModemManager-devel mailing list ModemManager-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/modemmanager-devel
