Hey hey, > I guess I don't have a problem with merging them, although strictly > speaking they refer to different things - locks vs. the PINs needed to > unlock those locks. > Yeah, you're totally right... but at the end the PIN/PUK codes are directly related to facilities. E.g "SIM facility", has "PIN code" and "PUK code". But it really seems broken to use the enum of codes as index for facilities, not the best idea. > > Two other points to consider regarding lock/PIN handling in the new > API: > * PIN, PUK, PIN2, and PUK2 are PINs for SIM locks. The rest are > device locks, so having them belong to the *.Sim interface > doesn't seem completely right. But 3gpp gloms them all > together, so maybe we should just live with this.
In the 0.6 API they are not handled in the SIM interface. UnlockRetries and PinRetryCounts are handled in the Modem interface, along with UnlockRequired; and the EnabledFacilityLocks one is handled in the 3GPP interface. Anyway, I'm not very convinced yet, on why we do keep EnabledFacilityLocks in one interface and UnlockRetries/PinRetryCounts/UnlockRequired in another one. Shouldn't we have all in the 3GPP-specific interface? Are there CDMA-only modems with facility locks? > * Shouldn't we add an argument to EnablePin and ChangePin that > specifies the lock to which the operation should apply? This > would mirror the CLCK and CPWD AT commands, which take the > facility name as an argument. This would correct what seems to > be an oversight in the current API. Not an oversight, just that the main use case is to be able to Enable/Change the SIM PIN, and the idea was to keep it simple. But now that we report if given facility locks are enabled or disabled, it could make sense to also allow trying to enable/disable all reported ones. We would need to move Enable() and Change() out from the SIM object and back to some interface in the Modem object. And now that you talk about EnablePin() and ChangePin(); the same logic could be applied to SendPin() and SendPuk(). SendPin()/SendPuk() should be used only when UnlockRequired says that there is something to unlock; they are actually backed by the same CPIN command. So, UnlockRequired may be saying "ph-sim-pin" (phone-specific PIN required), and we can then use SendPin() to send that specific code to the modem. Therefore, SendPin() is really not related to the SIM, but to UnlockRequired, and so they ought to be in the same interface (in the 0.6 API, SendPin() and SendPuk() are managed in the SIM object). And a new brainstorm here... given that we're going to break the DBus API, we can try to rework and consolidate all related properties. We could assume that each facility has 2 codes (PIN, PUK), and that the PUK code will only be required once all PIN attempts have been used (didn't look at any documentation, but that seems to me always the case). If we do assume this, we could then setup a "FacilityLocks" dictionary with signature "a{ubuu}" where: * The uint32 in the first position identifies the facility. * The boolean in the second position tells whether the facility has a lock. * The uint32 in the third position has the PIN retry count. * The uint32 in the fourth position has the PUK retry count. Then, we could have UnlockRequired be just a uint32 where we identify the 'facility' locked (as opposed to identifying which pin code we need). So, if we get "SIM" facility in UnlockRequired, we could then check the corresponding entry in the FacilityLocks dictionary and see how many retry counts we have for PIN and PUK. If retries for PIN is 0; it means we need the PUK code, unless PUK retries is also 0, which would mean we need to buy a new SIM card. Instead of just the key of the dictionary entry, we could also have the UnlockRequired property be a (ubuu); which would contain the whole entry of the dictionary. Thoughts? -- Aleksander _______________________________________________ networkmanager-list mailing list networkmanager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list