Hi Giacinto,
So first of all, please stop top-posting on this mailing list. All
comments should be in-line.
enum gemalto_auth_type {
OV_GEMALTO_AUTH_CGAUTH = 0,
CGAUTH is a release 11 feature and should be simply probed for in the
gprs-context initialization procedure, similar to how we test for
+CGDATA support.
OV_GEMALTO_AUTH_SGAUTH_PWD_USER = 1,
OV_GEMALTO_AUTH_SGAUTH_USER_PWD = 2,
You will need to explain the difference between SGAUTH 1 & 2 to me. Is
it the parameter order that is different between firmware versions?
Can't these simply be queried properly using AT^SGAUTH=?
};
So are you introducing a new gprs-context driver for gemalto or using
these for the 'atmodem' driver?
struct ov_gemalto {
enum gemalto_auth_type auth;
gboolean vts_with_quotes;
Sheesh, your firmware guys somehow managed to screw up the VTS command
syntax? That command has been in there for 20 years...
Anyhow, I strongly discourage you from modifying the atmodem voicecall.c
driver. Every vendor should have voice call state reporting commands
that are far superior to the AT+CLCC polling we do in the 'atmodem'
voicecall.c driver. So it should be fairly trivial to probe for +VTS
syntax there.
Worst case you can use ofono_modem_set_* family to set a particular
modem specific property which can be available to all atom drivers via
ofono_modem_get_*. So this VTS syntax can be handled that way.
};
<snip>
and then change the *_create() functions to use 'struct
ofono_vendor_parameters *' instead of 'unsigned int vendor', with
default &ov_generic.
In the example above, I have shown differences for the various Gemalto
authentication commands (3 options), that cross with the options for VTS.
And then most of the settings are common for Gemalto models (currently
factored with the vendor=OFONO_VENDOR_CINTERION).
If tomorrow I have to declare models for these simple settings, I have
to add at least 6 with the current system, and having a full driver just
because of these two AT commands seems needless.
No, this is all completely unneeded as far as I'm concerned. If you
want to use +CGAUTH, then just probe it properly and don't pass a vendor
at all. The VTS stuff I already covered.
The code would be simplified because in general in a switch there will
be only 1 vendor, with the current system there would be 6.
Is it ok if I update the code with this vendor system? I will have to
submit the entire tree, not by subdirectories, to have a consistent and
compiling commit.
Right now I'm completely unconvinced that such an invasive change is
warranted. So no, please don't do this.
Regards,
-Denis
_______________________________________________
ofono mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ofono.org/mailman/listinfo/ofono
