From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oliver Neukum Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB host CDC Phonet network interface driver Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:31:08 +0200 Message-ID: <200907241431.08858.oliver@neukum.org> References: <1248177515-12712-1-git-send-email-remi.denis-courmont@nokia.com> <200907241401.20262.oliver@neukum.org> <200907241514.18871.remi.denis-courmont@nokia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Marcel Holtmann , Alan Cox , ext Dan Williams , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-usb@vger.kernel.org" To: "=?iso-8859-15?q?R=E9mi?= Denis-Courmont" Return-path: Received: from smtp-out003.kontent.com ([81.88.40.217]:53126 "EHLO smtp-out003.kontent.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752615AbZGXMao convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Jul 2009 08:30:44 -0400 In-Reply-To: <200907241514.18871.remi.denis-courmont@nokia.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Am Freitag, 24. Juli 2009 14:14:17 schrieb R=E9mi Denis-Courmont: > On Friday 24 July 2009 15:01:19 ext Oliver Neukum wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, 22. Juli 2009 11:15:34 schrieb Marcel Holtmann: > > > > > The AT stuff is really problematic. Look at the hoops ISDN an= d > > > > > software modem drivers go through to emulate AT commands. I k= now > > > > > even of a CDC-ACM modem which can't deal with AT commands inl= ine > > > > > (that's within spec). It seems to me we should have a modem A= PI in > > > > > kernel. > > > > > > > > For devices which don't deal in AT commands probably but for de= vices > > > > whose firmware provides an AT command interface over serial I w= ould > > > > disagree. > > > > > > I fully agree here. Even if you think you get AT commands under > > > control, you really won't in the end. That standard is so wildly > > > mis-interpreted that it is not even funny anymore. > > > > For these devices we could at least separate the data channel from = the > > control channel. > > "These" as in AT devices? You want a line discipline to multiplex AT > commands inspite of PPP? I wonder if that'd work. No, I was thinking of having two full devices, a data channel and a con= trol channel for devices that really talk AT commands natively. Regards Oliver