Hi Giacinto,
So first of all, please stop top-posting on this mailing list. All
comments should be in-line.
understood.
> enum gemalto_auth_type {
> OV_GEMALTO_AUTH_CGAUTH = 0,
CGAUTH is a release 11 feature and should be simply probed for in the
gprs-context initialization procedure, similar to how we test for
+CGDATA support.
> OV_GEMALTO_AUTH_SGAUTH_PWD_USER = 1,
> OV_GEMALTO_AUTH_SGAUTH_USER_PWD = 2,
You will need to explain the difference between SGAUTH 1 & 2 to me. Is
it the parameter order that is different between firmware versions?
Can't these simply be queried properly using AT^SGAUTH=?
> };
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.
No query commands would not return the name of the parameters, which in this case is the only difference between username and password.
So are you introducing a new gprs-context driver for gemalto or using
these for the 'atmodem' driver?
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.
Just to explain the target, overall we are introducing support for more than 50 models (not firmware versions, plain different models).
Historically, an entire family of models share the same USB enumeration, despite the differences in hardware and software (for example for voice support), so there will be about two dozen USB PID, but more models behind.
>
> struct ov_gemalto {
> enum gemalto_auth_type auth;
> gboolean vts_with_quotes;
Sheesh, your firmware guys somehow managed to screw up the VTS command
syntax? That command has been in there for 20 years...
and our Siemens/Cinterion/Gemalto from earlier than that.
For backward compatibility, model after model, we kept the pre-standard syntax in some models, and introduced the standard one in other models whenever possible.
Anyhow, I strongly discourage you from modifying the atmodem voicecall.c
driver. Every vendor should have voice call state reporting commands
that are far superior to the AT+CLCC polling we do in the 'atmodem'
voicecall.c driver. So it should be fairly trivial to probe for +VTS
syntax there.
we already discussed this.
We do plan to have our own voicecall.c using URCs instead of polling, among the rest.
We planned to do it a bit later, but I think you are right, we can already clone the atmodem/voicecall for this change, then introducing the rest of the changes later.
Worst case you can use ofono_modem_set_* family to set a particular
modem specific property which can be available to all atom drivers via
ofono_modem_get_*. So this VTS syntax can be handled that way.
> };
>
I think ofono_modem_set_*/ofono_modem_get_* is just what we need for the two examples above (and others).
<snip>
>
> and then change the *_create() functions to use 'struct
> ofono_vendor_parameters *' instead of 'unsigned int vendor', with
> default &ov_generic.
>
> In the example above, I have shown differences for the various Gemalto
> authentication commands (3 options), that cross with the options for VTS.
> And then most of the settings are common for Gemalto models (currently
> factored with the vendor=OFONO_VENDOR_CINTERION).
> If tomorrow I have to declare models for these simple settings, I have
> to add at least 6 with the current system, and having a full driver just
> because of these two AT commands seems needless.
No, this is all completely unneeded as far as I'm concerned. If you
want to use +CGAUTH, then just probe it properly and don't pass a vendor
at all. The VTS stuff I already covered.
well, the point is that we need to use CGAUTH for some models, AND the rest of the code selected with OFONO_VENDOR_CINTERION within the same atom.
But the aforementioned ofono_modem_set_*/ofono_modem_get_* is the mechanism that we need.
>
> The code would be simplified because in general in a switch there will
> be only 1 vendor, with the current system there would be 6.
>
> Is it ok if I update the code with this vendor system? I will have to
> submit the entire tree, not by subdirectories, to have a consistent and
> compiling commit.
>
Right now I'm completely unconvinced that such an invasive change is
warranted. So no, please don't do this.
After your comments, I am convinced as well that we don't need this.
You were also right that with an example we could explain each other better.
Regards,
-Denis