Hi Sjur, Sjur Br?ndeland wrote: > 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.
If emergency calls cannot be part of mpty call, we can use either hangup_all or hangup_active as Denis said. However, your suggested fix will break multiparty call scenario since multiparty_hangup calls voicecall_release_next as well. Maybe we should use call->type to indicate whether it's an emergy call. It looks to me that the type flag in struct ofono_call hasn't been used yet. Correct me if I am wrong. > > Regards > Sjur > _______________________________________________ > ofono mailing list > ofono@ofono.org > http://lists.ofono.org/listinfo/ofono Regards, Zhenhua _______________________________________________ ofono mailing list ofono@ofono.org http://lists.ofono.org/listinfo/ofono
