From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2381716637312786172==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Denis Kenzior Subject: Re: [RFC 3/5] voicecall: Add ofono_voicecall_tty_notify api Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 23:19:47 -0600 Message-ID: <4D2E8B73.9050908@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1294850926.3873.101.camel@aeonflux> List-Id: To: ofono@ofono.org --===============2381716637312786172== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Marcel, On 01/12/2011 10:48 AM, Marcel Holtmann wrote: > Hi Jeevaka, > = >>>> Main reason for separate notification function is to avoid going >>>> through all the cases handled inside voicecall_notify. TTY field in >>>> ofono_call is basically for the GetProperties. >>> >>> I see. So here is the main question that comes from this now. >>> This seems to be a bit IFX specific driven API. I still have >>> no idea why they can not just indicate this via +CRING and >>> have to use CTM CALL for it. >>> >>> Are we expecting that all modems will just establish a normal >>> voice call and only later on signal that it is a TTY call? >>> Any input from different vendors other than IFX. What about STE, ISI? >> >> This notification is to inform the ME that the call is accepted as a TTY >> call >> on the remote side. > = > I see. Using a +X... IFX style notification would have been much nicer, > but so be it. The question still remains if all other modems do it > similar. > = > Btw. can you provide the mailing list with an example OFONO_AT_DEBUG=3D1 > trace for a TTY call on IFX. I really like to see one of these. > = > Denis, do you want an extra voicecall_tty_notify() callback or just have > it go through the voicecall_notify() one? > = If this is indeed a delayed handshake after the call has gone to active state, then using a separate notification seems reasonable enough to me. Regards, -Denis --===============2381716637312786172==--