Re: AT%N0187 openmoko echo patch?
On Tuesday 02 September 2008 08:33:28 Jim Morris wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Cesar Eduardo Barros wrote: > >> NeilBrown escreveu: > >>> On Mon, September 1, 2008 6:59 pm, Yorick Moko wrote: > On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Lorn Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > They certainly are not in our copy of the calypso spec's that we got > > directly from TI. If it is, I must be missing it, and haven't found > > it. > > > > But couldn't both of those have been documented? And if they have not > > been, might be classed as incompetent. They are after all just part of > > the modem instruction set. > > > > To not release the entire lot is a bit lame. > > Using an undocumented feature in a chip is very dangerous. Minor changes to > the fab, even though the chip has the same number may change or remove that > undocumented feature that the phones now rely on. I don't know if it's so much as an undocumented feature as an undocumented command. I think the response and a subsequent lookup provides enough relevant info as to what the 'feature' is. > If this is going to be adopted in builds, then someone at OM needs to get > TI to officially support that feature so that it does not disappear later. I tend to agree but I'd extend that to, OM should ensure that we are able to utilise the hardware effectively. A complete list of so-called documented and undocumented commands needs to be compiled or obtained by somebody, whether they are for development or not. After all, what the hell are we doing here? Sarton ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: AT%N0187 openmoko echo patch?
Jim Morris wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Cesar Eduardo Barros wrote: >>> NeilBrown escreveu: >>> On Mon, September 1, 2008 6:59 pm, Yorick Moko wrote: > On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Lorn Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> They certainly are not in our copy of the calypso spec's that we got >> directly from TI. If it is, I must be missing it, and haven't found it. >> >> But couldn't both of those have been documented? And if they have not >> been, might be classed as incompetent. They are after all just part of >> the modem instruction set. >> >> To not release the entire lot is a bit lame. >> > > Using an undocumented feature in a chip is very dangerous. Minor changes to > the fab, even though the > chip has the same number may change or remove that undocumented feature that > the phones now rely on. > > If this is going to be adopted in builds, then someone at OM needs to get TI > to officially support > that feature so that it does not disappear later. If it disappears later, we do have the source and can simply remove the additions. As well, it is not going to hurt because the modem would just respond with an error and move on to the next command. -- Lorn 'ljp' Potter Software Engineer, Systems Group, Trolltech, a Nokia company ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: AT%N0187 openmoko echo patch?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Cesar Eduardo Barros wrote: >> NeilBrown escreveu: >> >>> On Mon, September 1, 2008 6:59 pm, Yorick Moko wrote: >>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Lorn Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > They certainly are not in our copy of the calypso spec's that we got > directly from TI. If it is, I must be missing it, and haven't found it. > > > But couldn't both of those have been documented? And if they have not > been, might be classed as incompetent. They are after all just part of > the modem instruction set. > > To not release the entire lot is a bit lame. > Using an undocumented feature in a chip is very dangerous. Minor changes to the fab, even though the chip has the same number may change or remove that undocumented feature that the phones now rely on. If this is going to be adopted in builds, then someone at OM needs to get TI to officially support that feature so that it does not disappear later. -- Jim Morris, http://blog.wolfman.com ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: AT%N0187 openmoko echo patch?
Cesar Eduardo Barros wrote: > NeilBrown escreveu: > >> On Mon, September 1, 2008 6:59 pm, Yorick Moko wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Lorn Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>> They certainly are not in our copy of the calypso spec's that we got directly from TI. If it is, I must be missing it, and haven't found it. >>> Maybe TI just wants their products to suck? >>> What I mean: is this standard practice in this business? What possible >>> gain would TI have with not giving you that information? >>> >> They could avoid having to pay the extra cost of getting a competent and >> thorough documentation writer? >> >> Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by >> incompetence!! >> > > You can have other explanations which are neither malice nor incompetence. > > - That command might be broken or incomplete in some way, so it's not > documented. > - That command might be meant for internal debugging only, so it's not > documented. > > I came up with these two in less than a minute. We can probably easily > think of other valid justifications. > But couldn't both of those have been documented? And if they have not been, might be classed as incompetent. They are after all just part of the modem instruction set. To not release the entire lot is a bit lame. But seriously, who cares, just test what we know and move on. If we find out more we'll test that too ... hoorah! if someone wants to pressure them then let us know how you go. This mailling list suffers from way too much banter clutter. I'm surprised OM get anything done. Sarton ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: AT%N0187 openmoko echo patch?
Am Montag, 1. September 2008 10:13:53 schrieb Dietmar Friede: > where is the AT%N command documented? They are not even in our super-NDA docs ... -- :M: ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: AT%N0187 openmoko echo patch?
NeilBrown escreveu: > On Mon, September 1, 2008 6:59 pm, Yorick Moko wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Lorn Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>> They certainly are not in our copy of the calypso spec's that we got >>> directly from TI. If it is, I must be missing it, and haven't found it. >> Maybe TI just wants their products to suck? >> What I mean: is this standard practice in this business? What possible >> gain would TI have with not giving you that information? > > They could avoid having to pay the extra cost of getting a competent and > thorough documentation writer? > > Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by > incompetence!! You can have other explanations which are neither malice nor incompetence. - That command might be broken or incomplete in some way, so it's not documented. - That command might be meant for internal debugging only, so it's not documented. I came up with these two in less than a minute. We can probably easily think of other valid justifications. -- Cesar Eduardo Barros [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: AT%N0187 openmoko echo patch?
On Mon, September 1, 2008 6:59 pm, Yorick Moko wrote: > On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Lorn Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> They certainly are not in our copy of the calypso spec's that we got >> directly from TI. If it is, I must be missing it, and haven't found it. > > Maybe TI just wants their products to suck? > What I mean: is this standard practice in this business? What possible > gain would TI have with not giving you that information? They could avoid having to pay the extra cost of getting a competent and thorough documentation writer? Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence!! NeilBrown ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: AT%N0187 openmoko echo patch?
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Lorn Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > They certainly are not in our copy of the calypso spec's that we got > directly from TI. If it is, I must be missing it, and haven't found it. Maybe TI just wants their products to suck? What I mean: is this standard practice in this business? What possible gain would TI have with not giving you that information? ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: AT%N0187 openmoko echo patch?
Florian Hackenberger wrote: > On Monday 01 September 2008, Dietmar Friede wrote: >> Hi, >> >> where is the AT%N command documented? > Officially: nowhere, they seem to be under an NDA. There was a post > stating the commands from a user under [1]. They certainly are not in our copy of the calypso spec's that we got directly from TI. If it is, I must be missing it, and haven't found it. > >> Are there more "magic" AT-commands? > Very likely, yes. > >> What does the value 0187 mean? > The only thing I know about it is 'Enable AEC and Noise reduction', > which is the response you get from the phone if you send the command. > > As OM currently does not seem to have the resources (or motivation as > there are more pressing problems) to improve the echo situation it > maybe useful if someone from the community could sign an NDA with TI. > Maybe OM could help on this front (establishing communication with TI)? > > [1] > http://n2.nabble.com/calypso-hardware-echo-suppression--tp784752p786187.html > -- Lorn 'ljp' Potter Software Engineer, Systems Group, Trolltech, a Nokia company ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: AT%N0187 openmoko echo patch?
On Monday 01 September 2008, Dietmar Friede wrote: > Hi, > > where is the AT%N command documented? Officially: nowhere, they seem to be under an NDA. There was a post stating the commands from a user under [1]. > Are there more "magic" AT-commands? Very likely, yes. > What does the value 0187 mean? The only thing I know about it is 'Enable AEC and Noise reduction', which is the response you get from the phone if you send the command. As OM currently does not seem to have the resources (or motivation as there are more pressing problems) to improve the echo situation it maybe useful if someone from the community could sign an NDA with TI. Maybe OM could help on this front (establishing communication with TI)? [1] http://n2.nabble.com/calypso-hardware-echo-suppression--tp784752p786187.html -- DI Florian Hackenberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.hackenberger.at ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
AT%N0187 openmoko echo patch?
Hi, where is the AT%N command documented? Are there more "magic" AT-commands? What does the value 0187 mean? Dietmar Friede ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
