From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8255920278785362424==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Marcel Holtmann Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/12] gatchat: Add possibility to associate a diagnostic monitor to the AT-capable port Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2011 17:17:03 +0200 Message-ID: <1323357423.1965.46.camel@aeonflux> In-Reply-To: <4EE0E0D8.3000609@linux.intel.com> List-Id: To: ofono@ofono.org --===============8255920278785362424== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Philippe, > >> gatchat/gatchat.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> gatchat/gatchat.h | 4 ++++ > >> 2 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/gatchat/gatchat.c b/gatchat/gatchat.c > >> index 7a0ef35..00e5fa8 100644 > >> --- a/gatchat/gatchat.c > >> +++ b/gatchat/gatchat.c > >> @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ > >> #include "ringbuffer.h" > >> #include "gatchat.h" > >> #include "gatio.h" > >> +#include "gathdlc.h" > >> > >> /* #define WRITE_SCHEDULER_DEBUG 1 */ > >> > >> @@ -110,6 +111,7 @@ struct _GAtChat { > >> struct at_chat *parent; > >> guint group; > >> GAtChat *slave; > >> + GAtHDLC *diag_monitor; > >> }; > > > > what is this for? I don't see this needed at all. You are not crossing > > atom driver implementations anyway. > = > Here, the idea is to link one AT capable port to one Diagnostic port. > Commonly, we are specifying only one AT capable channel (GAtChat) when = > creating an atom. > For cdma_netreg, I need both (AT and QCDM). Indeed, with some EV-DO = > capable hardware, the result of some AT commands (like AT+CSS?) may be = > wrong. That's why, I introduced the QCDM support. To retrieve the = > GAtHDLC from the driver implementation, I chose to use a solution = > similar to 'g_at_chat_get_slave'. why both? Isn't QCDM only enough? Regards Marcel --===============8255920278785362424==--