From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7030206044850789728=="
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Denis Kenzior <denkenz@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] sim: add ofono_sim_get_mnc_length
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 09:03:12 -0600
Message-ID: <4D2C7130.5050101@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1294706442.3873.9.camel@aeonflux>
List-Id: <ofono.ofono.org>
To: ofono@ofono.org

--===============7030206044850789728==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Marcel,

On 01/10/2011 06:40 PM, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> Hi Jukka,
> =

>>  include/sim.h |    1 +
>>  src/sim.c     |    8 ++++++++
>>  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/sim.h b/include/sim.h
>> index 7860e24..9b21f2e 100644
>> --- a/include/sim.h
>> +++ b/include/sim.h
>> @@ -173,6 +173,7 @@ void ofono_sim_set_data(struct ofono_sim *sim, void =
*data);
>>  void *ofono_sim_get_data(struct ofono_sim *sim);
>>  =

>>  const char *ofono_sim_get_imsi(struct ofono_sim *sim);
>> +unsigned int ofono_sim_get_mnc_length(struct ofono_sim *sim);
> =

> so here is now the question. Do we wanna make this simple and do it like
> this or just provide functions to the MCC and MNC like we do inside the
> network registration interface?
> =

> Denis, any favorites?
> =


>From an API point of view providing the mnc and mcc directly is a better
idea.

Regards,
-Denis

--===============7030206044850789728==--