From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4201817324776946902==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Lei Yu Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: Add modem Type property Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 13:07:23 -0800 Message-ID: <4D39F58B.9080407@nokia.com> In-Reply-To: <4D39E972.5060305@gmail.com> List-Id: To: ofono@ofono.org --===============4201817324776946902== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Denis, On 01/21/2011 12:15 PM, ext Denis Kenzior wrote: > Hi Dara, > > On 01/20/2011 04:48 PM, Dara Spieker-Doyle wrote: >> Add support for providing the type of the attached modem device >> including GSM (3GPP), CDMA (3GPP2) and Bluetooth HFP. >> --- >> doc/modem-api.txt | 13 +++++++++++++ >> 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/doc/modem-api.txt b/doc/modem-api.txt >> index 45043b0..fe806c8 100644 >> --- a/doc/modem-api.txt >> +++ b/doc/modem-api.txt >> @@ -82,6 +82,19 @@ Properties boolean Powered [readwrite] >> >> This is usually obtained by using the +CGSN AT command. >> >> + string Type [readonly, optional, experimental] >> + >> + String representing the type of the modem device. >> + >> + The possible values are: >> + "gsm" Modem supports one or more of the 3GPP >> + family of technologies including GSM, >> + EDGE, UMTS, HSPA, LTE. >> + "cdma" Modem supports one or more of the 3GPP2 >> + family of technologies including CDMA 1x, >> + EVDO. >> + "hfp" Bluetooth hands-free profile (HFP) modem >> + > > So one pointed question: > > How are we planning to support dual-mode devices with this property? I > believe during the CDMA workshop we decided that the clients should > simply look at the set of interfaces, not a semi-static property... Also, it is my understanding that the reason we create org.ofono.cdma = interfaces during CDMA workshop are to make sure CDMA interfaces and = logics do not "pollute" GSM interfaces and logics which are very = different anyway. We have not ruled out the case where there may be = shared interfaces as we see a need. Currently, org.ofono.modem is this = case. Unless we would go ahead creating org.ofono.cdma.modem, we = discussed that option internally but feel that is less preferable than = the "Type" property we proposed here. > > Regards, > -Denis > _______________________________________________ > ofono mailing list > ofono(a)ofono.org > http://lists.ofono.org/listinfo/ofono Regards, -Lei --===============4201817324776946902==--