Hi Vincent,

Thanks this is what I assumed, don't you think this should be a retry scenario? 

Currently this message doesn't even return a failure status the at driver just 
continues as if nothing happened.

I may produce a patch to change this behavior, my experience with AT is just 
not very large so I don't want to work on something someone has already done.

Thanks,
Donald


On 03 Aug 2011, at 10:58 AM, Vincent CHAVANIS wrote:

> Hi donald,
> 
> This seems that you have an issue with the lower layer failure,
> this means your network connectivity is poor, i suggest you
> to change the antenna's location.
> 
> regards
> 
> Vincent.
> 
> 
> Le 03/08/2011 09:52, Donald Jackson a écrit :
>> Hi Alvaro,
>> 
>> OK I made the change last night and now we have some more descriptive errors.
>> 
>> 2011-08-03 09:40:15 [12728] [39] DEBUG: AT2[wavecom_74]: TP-Validity-Period: 
>> 24.0 hours
>> 2011-08-03 09:40:15 [12728] [39] DEBUG: AT2[wavecom_74]: -->  AT+CMGS=152^M
>> 2011-08-03 09:40:16 [12728] [39] DEBUG: AT2[wavecom_74]:<-- >
>> 2011-08-03 09:40:16 [12728] [39] DEBUG: AT2[wavecom_74]: send command 
>> status: 1
>> 2011-08-03 09:40:16 [12728] [39] DEBUG: AT2[wavecom_74]: -->  
>> 0031000B917227442266F70000A79D46F9BB0D0ACF41EC349DCE2E83C2739034E6C2C140F0B21C440EE75DA0ECBB0E1A87DDA073990EAAC
>> 341F437485A838160301808F99EC3D3F4301B340CCFD1206178BC0699E5EF3668C84E97DDF432BB0C62A6CD6517485A86B3F320E4730A4D82C26E32485C068DC36C76990C7ACB4153EA130AA2BF416F381DF4AED35D2
>> 0699D5D9E838270383BEF02
>> 2011-08-03 09:40:16 [12728] [39] DEBUG: AT2[wavecom_74]: -->  ^Z
>> 2011-08-03 09:40:29 [12728] [39] DEBUG: AT2[wavecom_74]:<-- >
>> 2011-08-03 09:40:29 [12728] [39] DEBUG: AT2[wavecom_74]:<-- +CMS ERROR: 513
>> 2011-08-03 09:40:29 [12728] [39] ERROR: AT2[wavecom_74]: +CMS ERROR: +CMS 
>> ERROR: 513
>> 2011-08-03 09:40:29 [12728] [39] ERROR: AT2[wavecom_74]: +CMS ERROR: Lower 
>> layer falure (SMS) (513)
>> 2011-08-03 09:40:29 [12728] [39] DEBUG: AT2[wavecom_74]: send command 
>> status: 1
>> 
>> Does anyone have any idea how to solve this ?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Donald
>> 
>> 
> 
> 


Reply via email to