Hi Michael,

On 01/07/2013 02:58 PM, M. Dietrich wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>
> i recently noticed that the at driver did not reach the state "registered".
> marcel pointer me to the message
>
> 	+CMER not supported by this modem.  If this is an error please submit
> 	patches to support this hardware
>
> and i started digging. problem was parsing of the response
>
> 	+CMER: (0,3),(0,2),0,(0-1),0

This is quite obviously wrong.  Quoting v.250:

"When the action accepts a single numeric subparameter, or the parameter 
accepts only one numeric value, the set of supported values may be 
presented in the information text as an ordered list of
values. The list shall be preceded by a left parenthesis ("(", IA5 2/8), 
and is followed by a right parenthesis (")", IA5 2/9). If only a single 
value is supported, it shall appear between the parentheses. If more 
than one value is supported, then the values may be listed individually, 
separated by comma characters (IA5 2/12), or, when a continuous range of 
values is supported, by the first value in the range, followed by a 
hyphen character (IA5 2/13), followed by the last value in the range. 
The specification of single values and ranges of values may be 
intermixed within a single information text. In all cases, the supported 
values shall be indicated in ascending order."

>
> that expresses the allowed options of CMER. neither (a list of) single integer

I'm pretty sure that this is supported by GAtChat.

> "(0,3)" (in opposite to range "(0-1)") nor missing brackets "0" were supported
> by ofono so i added this (see patch).
>
> i'm not sure if missing brackets are allowed or espress something different,
> maybe a AT-guru can tell. for now "(0)" behaves like "0".
>
> i assume that also other response-parsing flows in ofono have that problem
> so either a generic aproach should be implemented or other places be reviewed.
>

It is only a problem if the modem is broken, in which case you need to 
use a quirk and parsing the result of CMER=? is likely unnecessary.  For 
broken devices it is likely easier to simply skip CMER probing and just 
set the wanted CMER settings.

> marcel already pointer out that a generic aproach may be unnecessarily complex
> where i agree if it comes to strings and nested brackets but for plain integer
> cases it would be quite useful to get this done in one place for all. if
> interested i could implement such stuff into gatchat/gatresult.c which then can
> be used for the integer-only cases. what do you think?

Not sure what you're asking here, can you elaborate?

Regards,
-Denis