From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5800847114605618932==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Alex J Lennon Subject: Re: Cinterion EHS6 support Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:11:19 +0200 Message-ID: <55412CD7.3030600@dynamicdevices.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <554127F6.6030401@gmail.com> List-Id: To: ofono@ofono.org --===============5800847114605618932== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 29/04/2015 20:50, Denis Kenzior wrote: > Hi Alex, > > On 04/29/2015 01:24 PM, Alex J Lennon wrote: >> Hi Denis, >> >> On 29/04/2015 20:17, Denis Kenzior wrote: >>> Hi Alex, >>> >>> On 04/29/2015 11:45 AM, Alex J Lennon wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I've created a patch which adds support for the Cinterion EHS6 to >>>> Ofono. >>>> >>>> This is based on the TC65 source code with some changes to address an >>>> issue with +CIND handling >>>> >>> >>> Most likely TC65 has this issue as well. Are there any other changes ? >>> >> >> Yes it does. I started out with the TC65, couldn't get it going and had >> to apply that patch to it to get a connection up. > > It might be easier to rename tc65.c into cinterion.c and have it > handle both tc65 and ehs6 if this is the only difference. > > I would like to avoid duplicating modem drivers. So if plugins/tc65.c > can handle the EHS6 with just minor tweaks, then this would be the > preferred approach. = I understand. I am not sure what the differences are between the tc65 and the ehs6. I'll speak with Gemalto/Cinterion to get some clarification on this. My thought process for splitting it out was along these lines: At present I am focussed just on supporting a data-connection for one of our boards with the EHS6 on it with connman/ofono. We'll be working with the EHS6 and probably the EHS5 extensively over the next few years on a range of board products so I will likely be testing out other functionalities for the EHS6 such as voice, sms etc. etc. I imagine. I can prove this out on our hardware and provide any needed patches upstream if that is of use. But we don't plan to make use of the TC65 and so I can't commit to ensuring that anything I implement for the EHS6 would work for the TC65, or indeed wouldn't break the current TC65 implementation. I assumed that the current tc65 code worked, although it wasn't working for me on the ehs6, and as I don't know what's' going on there I was keen not to make any potentially breaking changes that might cause others problems. Can I come back to you with the response from Cinterion/Gemalto on differences/similarities between TC65 and EHS5/6 and then you can decide whether the patch needs refactoring? Thanks, Alex --===============5800847114605618932==--