Hi Denis,
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 06:05:08PM -0600, Denis Kenzior wrote:
> Case in point your patch, which doesn't even contain a code comment block on
> what it is trying to accomplish.
i understood the response of the modem follows the spec so i thought this would
be standard. but you are deeper in the specs and i won't tell otherwise.
> (And by the way your coding style is still wrong in several places...)
i just tried to intuitively follow the code standard i found in ofono, sorry if
i got that wrong.
> So far you are the first to report a modem that behaves in this manner when
> it comes to parameter lists.
yes, because i am probably the first that investigated the problem in depth. i
saw alot of complains that the registration state is not reached from many
ofono users. cause for that is exactly the +CMER answer of those modems.
as the modem in question is used in many thinkpads and other notebooks i assume
that the many people can't use ofono out of this reason.
so what do you suggest to support this modem? how would a quirk as you
suggested look like?
regards,
michael
--
M. Dietrich
_______________________________________________
ofono mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ofono.org/listinfo/ofono
