From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3631374057788551381==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Denis Kenzior Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] gatchat: Add g_at_chat_send_full. Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 18:48:39 -0500 Message-ID: <201005101848.40097.denkenz@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: List-Id: To: ofono@ofono.org --===============3631374057788551381== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Andrew, > Hi Denis, > = > On 10 May 2010 21:13, Denis Kenzior wrote: > >> g_at_chat_send_full takes two additional parameters compared to > >> g_at_chat_send. The destroy notification is removed from > >> g_at_chat_send and users updated. > >> --- > > > > You stated earlier that the modem will return an error and not time out. > > If this is the case then I'm really failing to see the point of needing > > the submit callback. > = > I stated that as en example of an incompliant modem. The specs are > not very clear here but say that we should assume the modem is dead if > no response to the AT+CSIM is sent within a timeout of at least 5 > seconds. The modem or the SIM? I think the specs are talking about the SIM here and = the modems do need to poll and detect SIM dead conditions. If we were to = implement a GSM soft-modem, then we'd definitely need to poll... > = > My thinking so far was that ofono should support an (imaginary) modem > that's described by the specs, and on top of that add support for > vendor specific things, but maybe that is useless in this case. What > do you think? I think we should drop this capability until we actually see this 'imaginar= y' = modem you describe in the wild. Most vendors intercept everything related = to = SIM / STK and can even do hardware SIM detection. Makes no sense for us to = worry about it right now. Regards, -Denis --===============3631374057788551381==--