RE: [RFC 3/5] voicecall: Add ofono_voicecall_tty_notify api
Hello Marcel, On 12 Jan 2011, Marcel Holtmann wrote: Are we expecting that all modems will just establish a normal voice call and only later on signal that it is a TTY call? Any input from different vendors other than IFX. What about STE, ISI? not later, but as part of standard call setup. E.g. on ISI, CTM is a property of a voice call. And this makes sense as TTY calls _are_ essentially voice calls, with just a bit indicating to the network that the voice circuit should be free of any transcoder/audioprocessing/etc that is not compatible with CTM. And this is negotiated as part of standard call setup (same way as supported codecs). My understanding so far has been that TextTelephony.Enabled=TRUE means that the CTM bit is set in all subsequent MO calls, and it is set by default when answering to MT calls. And the one special case is receiving a CTM-enabled call when TTY is not enabled (in oFono). In this case it should be possible to enable TTY (for at least that call) and respond to the call (and ifxmodem seems to provide support for this scenario). This should be standard stuff to all modems as this is a heavily regulated feature. ___ ofono mailing list ofono@ofono.org http://lists.ofono.org/listinfo/ofono
RE: [RFC 3/5] voicecall: Add ofono_voicecall_tty_notify api
Hi Jeevaka, include/voicecall.h |2 ++ src/voicecall.c | 12 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/voicecall.h b/include/voicecall.h index e37d73b..6f1bdd2 100644 --- a/include/voicecall.h +++ b/include/voicecall.h @@ -144,6 +144,8 @@ void ofono_voicecall_notify(struct ofono_voicecall *vc, void ofono_voicecall_disconnected(struct ofono_voicecall *vc, int id, enum ofono_disconnect_reason reason, const struct ofono_error *error); +void ofono_voicecall_tty_notify(struct ofono_voicecall *vc, + const struct ofono_call *call); what is the advantage of having this separate and not part of the regular voicecall_notify and just extending struct ofono_call with a field for TTY? Main reason for separate notification function is to avoid going through all the cases handled inside voicecall_notify. TTY field in ofono_call is basically for the GetProperties. I see. So here is the main question that comes from this now. This seems to be a bit IFX specific driven API. I still have no idea why they can not just indicate this via +CRING and have to use CTM CALL for it. Are we expecting that all modems will just establish a normal voice call and only later on signal that it is a TTY call? Any input from different vendors other than IFX. What about STE, ISI? Regards Marcel ___ ofono mailing list ofono@ofono.org http://lists.ofono.org/listinfo/ofono
RE: [RFC 3/5] voicecall: Add ofono_voicecall_tty_notify api
Hi Marcel, ofono-boun...@ofono.org wrote: Main reason for separate notification function is to avoid going through all the cases handled inside voicecall_notify. TTY field in ofono_call is basically for the GetProperties. I see. So here is the main question that comes from this now. This seems to be a bit IFX specific driven API. I still have no idea why they can not just indicate this via +CRING and have to use CTM CALL for it. Are we expecting that all modems will just establish a normal voice call and only later on signal that it is a TTY call? Any input from different vendors other than IFX. What about STE, ISI? This notification is to inform the ME that the call is accepted as a TTY call on the remote side. Regards, Jeevaka ___ ofono mailing list ofono@ofono.org http://lists.ofono.org/listinfo/ofono
RE: [RFC 3/5] voicecall: Add ofono_voicecall_tty_notify api
Hi Jeevaka, Main reason for separate notification function is to avoid going through all the cases handled inside voicecall_notify. TTY field in ofono_call is basically for the GetProperties. I see. So here is the main question that comes from this now. This seems to be a bit IFX specific driven API. I still have no idea why they can not just indicate this via +CRING and have to use CTM CALL for it. Are we expecting that all modems will just establish a normal voice call and only later on signal that it is a TTY call? Any input from different vendors other than IFX. What about STE, ISI? This notification is to inform the ME that the call is accepted as a TTY call on the remote side. I see. Using a +X... IFX style notification would have been much nicer, but so be it. The question still remains if all other modems do it similar. Btw. can you provide the mailing list with an example OFONO_AT_DEBUG=1 trace for a TTY call on IFX. I really like to see one of these. Denis, do you want an extra voicecall_tty_notify() callback or just have it go through the voicecall_notify() one? Regards Marcel ___ ofono mailing list ofono@ofono.org http://lists.ofono.org/listinfo/ofono
Re: [RFC 3/5] voicecall: Add ofono_voicecall_tty_notify api
Hi Marcel, On 01/12/2011 10:48 AM, Marcel Holtmann wrote: Hi Jeevaka, Main reason for separate notification function is to avoid going through all the cases handled inside voicecall_notify. TTY field in ofono_call is basically for the GetProperties. I see. So here is the main question that comes from this now. This seems to be a bit IFX specific driven API. I still have no idea why they can not just indicate this via +CRING and have to use CTM CALL for it. Are we expecting that all modems will just establish a normal voice call and only later on signal that it is a TTY call? Any input from different vendors other than IFX. What about STE, ISI? This notification is to inform the ME that the call is accepted as a TTY call on the remote side. I see. Using a +X... IFX style notification would have been much nicer, but so be it. The question still remains if all other modems do it similar. Btw. can you provide the mailing list with an example OFONO_AT_DEBUG=1 trace for a TTY call on IFX. I really like to see one of these. Denis, do you want an extra voicecall_tty_notify() callback or just have it go through the voicecall_notify() one? If this is indeed a delayed handshake after the call has gone to active state, then using a separate notification seems reasonable enough to me. Regards, -Denis ___ ofono mailing list ofono@ofono.org http://lists.ofono.org/listinfo/ofono
Re: [RFC 3/5] voicecall: Add ofono_voicecall_tty_notify api
Hi Jeevaka, include/voicecall.h |2 ++ src/voicecall.c | 12 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/voicecall.h b/include/voicecall.h index e37d73b..6f1bdd2 100644 --- a/include/voicecall.h +++ b/include/voicecall.h @@ -144,6 +144,8 @@ void ofono_voicecall_notify(struct ofono_voicecall *vc, void ofono_voicecall_disconnected(struct ofono_voicecall *vc, int id, enum ofono_disconnect_reason reason, const struct ofono_error *error); +void ofono_voicecall_tty_notify(struct ofono_voicecall *vc, + const struct ofono_call *call); what is the advantage of having this separate and not part of the regular voicecall_notify and just extending struct ofono_call with a field for TTY? Regards Marcel ___ ofono mailing list ofono@ofono.org http://lists.ofono.org/listinfo/ofono
