2011/2/22 <[email protected]> > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tomasz Gregorek [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: 22 February 2011 16:09 > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: Nayani Vijay > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] atmodem: CEREG support for LTE network > > status reporting in AT modem > > > > Hi Vijay > > > > > > 2011/2/22 <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [PATCH] atmodem: CEREG support for LTE network > > > status reporting in AT modem > > > > > > [PATCH] atmodem: CEREG support for LTE network status > > > reporting in AT modem Tomasz Gregorek tomasz.gregorek at > > > gmail.com Thu Feb 17 19:52:45 PST 2011 > > > > > > * Previous message: [PATCH 2/5] bluetooth: add a > > > bluetoothd connect watch > > > * Next message: Problem with SIM lock states not showing > > > correctly in Ofono API. > > > * Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ > > subject ] [ author ] > > > > > > From: Tomasz Gregorek <tomasz.gregorek at stericsson.com> > > > > > > > > This is a proposal for CEREG support based on the AT modem. > > > Support in driver should work, though I have an issue > > with the core. > > > > > > The core has one gprs status currently. In case of having > > > second status for LTE, there is need of having two satuses, > > > one for each, 3G and LTE, or to combine those two into one. > > > > > > I took second approach as it leaves current oFono API, though > > > it is not perfect. > > > > > > I have been working on solution that comprises of > > separate eps atom and > > corresponding driver. Code has been tested against > > modified phonesim for > > eps.Will provide an RFC patch soon once I bring it to > > certain logical > > end. > > > > Regards, > > Vijay > > > > > > > > This is what I was thinking about too. > > For me, from status point of view, both networks look very > > similar, thats why I was thinking about using gprs atom / > > driver for status handling and create separate atom for QoS / IMS. > > > > I agree with you , both bearers are almost similar.Minor difference i > see are context managment (especially default context creation) and some > eps related spill over on other existing atoms (For ex SIM would not > contain some ISIM (IMPU/IMPI)related stuff).My idea is seperate atoms > solution would even work for legacy switch back(CSFB) too with a minimal > impact on exiting architecture.Your comments on these ideas would also > very valuable here as i assume you have real modem unlike me. > > My main concern is about LTE only modems, these ones would not register gprs atom so all stuff from gprs atom needs to be done in eps atom, plus CEREG and initial PDN. Than if you have a mix modem with 3G and LTE than all this "stuff" would be done twice without some additional logic. Sounds complicated to me. About initial PDN, acually I think it can be placed in gprs atom too, it won't influence 3G modems at all and we have +CGEV: handling there already (maybe not the strongest argument but would make things easier).
> > I am at most interested in your solution. I know from Denis > > that this is what was agreed. > > > > Br > > Tomasz Gregorek > > > > Will submit the rfc patch and short design write up once i have code > ready. > Ok. More comments as soon as there will be some code. > > Br, > Vijay > _______________________________________________ > ofono mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ofono.org/listinfo/ofono > Br Tomasz
_______________________________________________ ofono mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ofono.org/listinfo/ofono
