From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B8rn_Mork?= Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: qmi_wwan: MC73xx interface 10 is not QMI Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 14:33:32 +0100 Message-ID: <8761bbqker.fsf@nemi.mork.no> References: <1423477027-10869-1-git-send-email-kristian.evensen@gmail.com> <87a90nqp45.fsf@nemi.mork.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Network Development , Aleksander Morgado To: Kristian Evensen Return-path: Received: from canardo.mork.no ([148.122.252.1]:49514 "EHLO canardo.mork.no" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759438AbbBINdp convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Feb 2015 08:33:45 -0500 In-Reply-To: (Kristian Evensen's message of "Mon, 9 Feb 2015 13:26:53 +0100") Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Kristian Evensen writes: > On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Kristian Evensen > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Bj=C3=B8rn Mork wro= te: >>> Just to be sure: You do have a configuration where interfaces #10 a= nd >>> #11 are visible, but none of them respond to any QMI at all? Not e= ven >>> CTL SYNC? Could you get a minimal usbmon trace of that? > > Here is a minial usbmon where I send SYNC to interface 10. After I > made the trace, I tried interface 8 (to make sure that there was > nothing wrong with modem) and it worked fine. ModemManager or any > similar tool is not running. Thanks. > The firmware is SWI9X15C_05.05.02.00 r19147 carmd-fwbuild1 2013/11/15= 13:54:28 That is pretty old relative to this hardware. First commercial release? I don't really want to push you to do an upgrade, but it would sure be nice to have this test repeated on a recent firmware version. Not that I can spot anything particularily promising in the release notes. Did you have one of these 9x15 modems, Aleksander? Did you ever verify whether the additional QMI interface(s) worked? I did find our previous discussions about these two RMNET1 and RMNET2 functions, e.g: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libqmi-devel/2014-July/000875.htm= l and it seems to indicate that both work as long as you configure them for 802.3 framing. But that could just be an information feedback loop...=20 > -Kristian > ffff8800cbbad240 1429569304 S Ii:3:050:7 -115:256 10 < > ffff8800cbbadb40 1429569566 S Co:3:050:0 s 21 00 0000 000a 000c 12 =3D= 010b0000 00000001 27000000 > ffff8800cbbadb40 1429570337 C Co:3:050:0 0 12 > > ffff8800cbbad240 1434576966 C Ii:3:050:7 -2:256 0 > ffff8800cbbad240 1434577061 S Ii:3:050:7 -115:256 10 < > ffff8800cbbadb40 1434577154 S Co:3:050:0 s 21 00 0000 000a 000c 12 =3D= 010b0000 00000001 27000000 > ffff8800cbbadb40 1434577968 C Co:3:050:0 0 12 > > ffff8800cbbad240 1439584564 C Ii:3:050:7 -2:256 0 > ffff8800cbbad240 1439584687 S Ii:3:050:7 -115:256 10 < > ffff8800cbbadb40 1439584829 S Co:3:050:0 s 21 00 0000 000a 000c 12 =3D= 010b0000 00000001 27000000 > ffff8800cbbadb40 1439585699 C Co:3:050:0 0 12 > > ffff8800cbbad240 1440477055 C Ii:3:050:7 -2:256 0 Hmm, it's been a long time since I've looked at one of these so I might be wrong, but I must admit that it looks pretty dead. I assume the ENOENT Ii callback status indicates a timeout? Bj=C3=B8rn