From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8509493892085800491==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Denis Kenzior Subject: Re: vendor models and options Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2018 15:52:04 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: List-Id: To: ofono@ofono.org --===============8509493892085800491== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Giacinto, > yes, CGAUTH can be queried, but there is no fallback command in case it = > fails, so it has to be pre-defined based on the model used. You might have to show me more specifics. I don't see why we couldn't = query +CGAUTH=3D? in all cases and if it isn't supported, fall back to = vendor specific commands? > No query commands would not return the name of the parameters, which in = > this case is the only difference between username and password. That's too bad. Some vendors define a different length for username / = password, so you could guess the order by which lengths are returned. = Others use weird strings with password or username in the '=3D?' response. However, since you likely want to use a vendor specific gprs-context = driver anyway, this really shouldn't be that big of a deal. > = > I am introducing a specific gprs-context for some models, using atmodem = > for others, and mbim and qmi for other models. > I try to stick to gprs (not gprs-context) for most of them, because this = > is pretty much the same for most of them. For some models that have a = > lot of differences we are going to use specific atoms. > We use the same code for the lte atom as well, unless there is a way to = > factorize it. It is generally quite easy to share things between AT command based = drivers. See drivers/atmodem/atutil.[ch]. Also, you might want to start by submitting a small subset of changes = you have pending as a trial run to get comfortable with the overall = development process, patch reviews, resubmissions, etc. Regards, -Denis --===============8509493892085800491==--