From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0324473013385273705==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Marcel Holtmann Subject: Re: gatchat looses UR code if received while waiting a response Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 02:04:52 -0800 Message-ID: <1298282692.2519.43.camel@aeonflux> In-Reply-To: <1298281114.18611.53.camel@lkunnasl-desktop> List-Id: To: ofono@ofono.org --===============0324473013385273705== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Lasse, > I've seen an issue in Unsolicited Result code handling in gatchat. If > ofono has sent an AT command and is waiting for a response, but modem > has sent an UR code just before the AT command reached the modem, > gatchat does not handle that UR code correctly (it drops it). = > = > 27.007 does not restrict UR-sending in the time between AT command and > sending final response. > = > Even modem would not send an UR while an active AT command, this may > happen as a command may be on its way to ofono (e.g. in kernel). actually GAtChat handles this correctly. Important is what you give as valid_resp to g_at_chat_send. If this is NULL, then all lines between the command and OK are consumed by the callback of the send command. > Real example of this happening: > ofonod[1388]: Default: > AT+CGMM\r = > ofonod[1388]: Default: < \r > \n*STKI:"D027810301258082028182850A5361756E616C616874698F09013E5072657061= 69641801241F020103"\r\n = > ofonod[1388]: Default: < \r\nST-Ericsson Mobile Broadband\r\n\r\nOK\r > \n = > = > In this case the call back of *STKI was never called. > = > This is not a modem issue as it has been verified the modem has sent > *STKI before AT+CGMM was received. I consider this a modem issue. It should not send *STKI during a AT+CGMM command to avoid any kind of confusion of the parser. > One way to solve this is to change the sequence in gatchat.c/have_line() > a bit and check first if this is UR code and then proceeding to response > handling. Would this be acceptable solution for this issue or would it > cause some drawbacks? If it is okay I can submit a patch See my command above. GAtChat is operating just fine. Regards Marcel --===============0324473013385273705==--