From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5517042251015657043==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Marcel Holtmann Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 4/7] stemodem: Add Radio Settings to STE Modem Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 18:36:39 +0200 Message-ID: <1281976600.23399.41.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: List-Id: To: ofono@ofono.org --===============5517042251015657043== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Sjur, > >> Changes since last patch set: > >> o Moved updates to plugins/ste to separate patch. > >> o Updated error handling. > >> o Style issues. > >> > >> > >> Makefile.am | 4 +- > >> drivers/stemodem/radio-settings.c | 223 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++= +++++++++ > >> drivers/stemodem/stemodem.c | 2 + > >> drivers/stemodem/stemodem.h | 2 + > >> 4 files changed, 230 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > >> create mode 100644 drivers/stemodem/radio-settings.c > > > > is this identical to how MBM does it? If yes, then I prefer we add this > > to drivers/mbmmodem/ and you just reference it. If not then I like to > > see the MBM version of this and where it actually differs. Maybe a MBM > > version with a STE quirk is better. > = > Actually this is not yet implemented by MBM, so I guess STE is master > this time ;-) I thought that part would be similar in both cards. Then I am fine with this. > > I prefer doing this in MBM since that modem driver was just the first. > > There is no other preference here ;) > = > This actually raises one question. How should we handle version variation= s from > the same Modem vendor. > The differences will be larger as we start adding support for LTE, and > support different > bearers (PC cards with USB and Modems with CAIF). > Should we create more entries in the vendor enum, or do you have something > else in mind? We cross that bridge when we get to it. Regards Marcel --===============5517042251015657043==--