Hi Alex,

 >
> 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.

Sure.  In the past we have found that the modem firmware is similar 
enough that no changes are needed between different modem families from 
the same manufacturer.  There were one or two exceptions of course.

>
> 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.

Some things can be done by eye-balling the code.  For example, I just 
ran a diff on the code you submitted.  The only difference between 
plugins/ehs6.c and plugins/tc65.c is the vendor quirk for 
ofono_netreg_create.  Something that tc65 also probably needs.

>
> 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.

I'm not quite sure why that would be the case.  Registering for CIND 
indications that will never come should not cause any significant issues...

>
> 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?

Sure

Regards,
-Denis