From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8983046724337269639=="
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Denis Kenzior <denkenz@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mbm: add quirks for Dell D5530
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 13:29:24 -0500
Message-ID: <4C756104.90504@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1282760583.6841.54.camel@localhost.localdomain>
List-Id: <ofono.ofono.org>
To: ofono@ofono.org

--===============8983046724337269639==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Marcel,

On 08/25/2010 01:23 PM, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> Hi Denis,
> =

>>>>> Dell D5530 is an OEM version of F3507g. It has an annoying habit of
>>>>> announcing itself to world with its own name. It also crashes upon
>>>>> processing received cbs messages.
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  plugins/mbm.c |   55 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
++++++--
>>>>>  1 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/plugins/mbm.c b/plugins/mbm.c
>>>>> index c9b0ea4..1c2b9a8 100644
>>>>> --- a/plugins/mbm.c
>>>>> +++ b/plugins/mbm.c
>>>>> @@ -53,9 +53,15 @@ static const char *cfun_prefix[] =3D { "+CFUN:", N=
ULL };
>>>>>  static const char *cpin_prefix[] =3D { "+CPIN:", NULL };
>>>>>  static const char *none_prefix[] =3D { NULL };
>>>>>  =

>>>>> +enum mbm_variant {
>>>>> +	MBM_GENERIC,
>>>>> +	MBM_DELL_D5530,		/* OEM of F3507g */
>>>>> +};
>>>>> +
>>>>>  struct mbm_data {
>>>>>  	GAtChat *modem_port;
>>>>>  	GAtChat *data_port;
>>>>> +	enum mbm_variant variant;
>>>>>  	guint poll_source;
>>>>>  	guint poll_count;
>>>>>  	gboolean have_sim;
>>>>> @@ -137,9 +143,50 @@ static gboolean init_simpin_check(gpointer user_=
data)
>>>>>  	return FALSE;
>>>>>  }
>>>>>  =

>>>>> +static void d5530_notify(GAtResult *result, gpointer user_data)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +	DBG("D5530");
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> Should we really bother with this one? Or you're trying to be like
>>>> Marcel and waste some processing time with unused unsolicited
>>>> notifications? :)
>>>
>>> I think we should until we have this all figured out. More debug output
>>> is always a good thing.
>>>
>>> And yes, essentially there is some processing wasted, but then again,
>>> this hardware is so damn stupid broken it deserves to be punished ;)
>>>
>>
>> I have to disagree, I can understand if you take the unsolicited
>> notification and break it down somewhat (like we used to with OCTI,
>> OWCTI, etc for HSO).  But just printing a debug seems useless.
> =

> then lets break it down ;)
> =

> 	DBG("D");
> 	DBG("5");
> 	DBG("5");
> 	DBG("3");
> 	DBG("0");
> =


Funny ;)

I meant more like, if you don't g_at_result_iter_init() in the callback,
then don't bother registering for it in the first place.

Regards,
-Denis

--===============8983046724337269639==--