On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 10:16 -0400, Dan Williams wrote: > On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 08:56 -0400, Dan Williams wrote: > > On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 19:43 +0100, Rick Jones wrote: > > > --On Wednesday, July 01, 2009 14:36:24 -0400 Dan Williams > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Functionality is definitely tied to the IF number. IF0 is > > > effectively > > > > > dead (supposedly NMEA, but I don't know what it's meant to > > > support). > > > > > IF1 & IF3 both behave like a modem (usually), and seem very > > > closely > > > > > tied together. E.g. if you use ATE0 to turn off echo on one port, > > > it > > > > > is turned off on both. Very occasionally, IF1 will not respond to > > > AT > > > > > commands, but the modem still works on the correct IF3 port, and > > > IF1 > > > > > still spits out messages. > > > > > > > > How often does IF1 spit out messages? What do they look like? > > > > > > The messages all come out the same on both IF! & IF3, regardless of > > > whether IF1 decides to accept commands. > > > > > > To start with there is always +ZUSIMR:2 every 2 secs., this can be > > > stopped by giving any version of AT+CPMS on either port (stops the > > > messages on both ports). The only other UMs I see are +ZDONR and > > > +ZPASR. > > > > Ugh. That sucks. That means hardcoding stuff on a per-modem basis, > > potentially using AT+CGMM responses instead of USB IDs, because some > > vendors (Huawei) use the same USB ID for vastly different devices to > > work around stupid Windows bugs. > > I've found some ZTE windows inf drivers that appear to confirm that > we'll need to hardcode ports. Teh suck.
Rick, could I ask you to run 'lsusb -vv' for me while the modem is plugged in *and* has been put into modem mode? Thanks, Dan _______________________________________________ NetworkManager-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
