Hi Denis,
> >>>>> Dell D5530 is an OEM version of F3507g. It has an annoying habit of
> >>>>> announcing itself to world with its own name. It also crashes upon
> >>>>> processing received cbs messages.
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> plugins/mbm.c | 55
> >>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >>>>> 1 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/plugins/mbm.c b/plugins/mbm.c
> >>>>> index c9b0ea4..1c2b9a8 100644
> >>>>> --- a/plugins/mbm.c
> >>>>> +++ b/plugins/mbm.c
> >>>>> @@ -53,9 +53,15 @@ static const char *cfun_prefix[] = { "+CFUN:", NULL
> >>>>> };
> >>>>> static const char *cpin_prefix[] = { "+CPIN:", NULL };
> >>>>> static const char *none_prefix[] = { NULL };
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +enum mbm_variant {
> >>>>> + MBM_GENERIC,
> >>>>> + MBM_DELL_D5530, /* OEM of F3507g */
> >>>>> +};
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> struct mbm_data {
> >>>>> GAtChat *modem_port;
> >>>>> GAtChat *data_port;
> >>>>> + enum mbm_variant variant;
> >>>>> guint poll_source;
> >>>>> guint poll_count;
> >>>>> gboolean have_sim;
> >>>>> @@ -137,9 +143,50 @@ static gboolean init_simpin_check(gpointer
> >>>>> user_data)
> >>>>> return FALSE;
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +static void d5530_notify(GAtResult *result, gpointer user_data)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> + DBG("D5530");
> >>>>> +}
> >>>>> +
> >>>>
> >>>> Should we really bother with this one? Or you're trying to be like
> >>>> Marcel and waste some processing time with unused unsolicited
> >>>> notifications? :)
> >>>
> >>> I think we should until we have this all figured out. More debug output
> >>> is always a good thing.
> >>>
> >>> And yes, essentially there is some processing wasted, but then again,
> >>> this hardware is so damn stupid broken it deserves to be punished ;)
> >>>
> >>
> >> I have to disagree, I can understand if you take the unsolicited
> >> notification and break it down somewhat (like we used to with OCTI,
> >> OWCTI, etc for HSO). But just printing a debug seems useless.
> >
> > then lets break it down ;)
> >
> > DBG("D");
> > DBG("5");
> > DBG("5");
> > DBG("3");
> > DBG("0");
> >
>
> Funny ;)
>
> I meant more like, if you don't g_at_result_iter_init() in the callback,
> then don't bother registering for it in the first place.
I figured that and I am fine with your argumentation to not do it, but I
just couldn't resit on this one ;)
Regards
Marcel
_______________________________________________
ofono mailing list
ofono@ofono.org
http://lists.ofono.org/listinfo/ofono
