Denis Kenzior <denk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I thought of one more issue with voice calls.
>> I don't think it is safe to to terminate emergency calls using
>> release_specific, AT+CHLD=1X.
>> At least this don't work for STE modems.
>>
>> I suggest calls in state active should be terminated using hangup_all
>> or hangup_active.
>> What do you think?
>
> So in the case of a single call, the emergency call will be terminated
> using hangup_all / hangup_active anyway. I have relaxed the single call
> restriction for active calls when hangup_active is provided by the
> driver. Refer to c7b13ec2fe664b122216a312f2442c9ca26f5f43
Yes, it seems to be ok for voicecall_hangup, but in manager_hangup_all
the active call is still terminated with release_specific in
voiceall_release_next.
This implies that if you have an emergency call and terminate it with
manager_hangup_all AT+CHLD=1X still will be used, right?
I suggest we change voicecall_release_next like this:
if (vc->driver->hangup_active != NULL &&
(call->call->status == CALL_STATUS_ALERTING ||
call->call->status == CALL_STATUS_DIALING ||
+ call->call->status == CALL_STATUS_ACTIVE ||
call->call->status == CALL_STATUS_INCOMING))
vc->driver->hangup_active(vc, multirelease_callback, vc);
else
vc->driver->release_specific(vc, call->call->id,
multirelease_callback, vc);
> For mpty calls this gets tricky. I'd like some answers to these questions:
>
> - Can Emergency calls participate in mpty?
I have to verify this with some of my colleagues, but I am pretty sure
emergency calls cannot be applied to the AT+CHLD command. i.e. they cannot
be part of mpty.
Regards
Sjur
_______________________________________________
ofono mailing list
ofono@ofono.org
http://lists.ofono.org/listinfo/ofono
