Re: fix for +CMER parser of AT driver (fixes registration)

[Denis Kenzior <denkenz@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1278 bytes --]

Hi,

> so if only the output of an option list just does not follow the spec
> but most other stuff of the modem works fine why not be more tolerant
> parsing the option list?
>

Actually we do not want to be tolerant.  If something is broken, we want 
to make sure that any work-around code-path is explicitly called out. 
There are many reasons for this, one of the main ones being code 
efficiency.  The other code readability.  Over time such 'workarounds' 
pollute the code base and make it ugly; and the reasons for why it is 
that way are either lost or become murky.  Case in point your patch, 
which doesn't even contain a code comment block on what it is trying to 
accomplish.  (And by the way your coding style is still wrong in several 
places...)

> if you instead have a quirk for this and only this modem you fixed only
> a single one. i assume that also other modems are broken in this way and
> fixing it in the parser would enable more modems to work.
>

I do not accept your assumption.  We have been using almost the exact 
same structure for parsing parameter lists in the SMS driver for over 3 
years.  So far you are the first to report a modem that behaves in this 
manner when it comes to parameter lists.

Regards,
-Denis