From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8101310069478757406==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Marcel Holtmann Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] isimodem: header updates for ISI2.5 Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 11:47:30 +0100 Message-ID: <1296643650.1520.322.camel@aeonflux> In-Reply-To: <1296588776.2619.30.camel@tucson> List-Id: To: ofono@ofono.org --===============8101310069478757406== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Aki, > > > +enum isi_version { > > > + ISI_20 =3D 0, > > > + ISI_25 =3D 1 > > > +}; > > = > > so what is the final decision here now. ISI doing auto-detection and > > this gets not exposed to the modem drivers or we do. > = > Like I replied earlier, I don't see the need for this. Also, it will not > work well with the isiusb plugin, which has the potential to work with > any ISI modem. I'm not willing to break that potential until we just > absolutely have to. > = > So, my stance holds: we quirk based on resource ID and based on the > server's ISI version. good to know. I was just double-checking in case you guys agreed on something different on a private channel. > I'm starting to think me just saying this out loud is not concrete > enough, so I guess one way forward here could be for me to go ahead and > adapt e.g. the netreg driver to work with N900 and later ISI modems. The > netreg driver would make a good example, as it is one of those where the > resource ID changes post N900, and the messages do vary based on it. I think having an example on how you want this handled would be a good idea. I don't have time to get myself familiar enough with ISI that I can do any proper review here. So this is in your hands. Regards Marcel --===============8101310069478757406==--