Re: Sierra Wireless EM7455

[Aleksander Morgado]

On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Bjørn Mork  wrote:
>>> How difficult will it be to restrict this to Sierra modems with QMI
>>> service support?  Or was that the set you meant we should
>>> unconditionally try the command on?  If so, then I say "go!".
>>
>> I tried the QMI MBIM service in my Ericsson MBIM modem and it just
>> kindly replied that it didn't know anything about that service, which
>> is what I would expect from every other vendor.
>
> Yes, that is what I expect for all the non-Qualcomm ones.  I worry most
> about the other Qualcomm based modems, which may implement the MBIM
> service but not the Sierra-specific QMI request.  That could result in
> e.g. a timeout.
>
>> When I said unconditionally I meant for every MBIM modem out there,
>> not just Sierra based ones.
>
> OK

I'll do the change in the MM branch this weekend to always try the
QMI-over-MBIM thing during power on then; I guess that actual test
results will help us decide what to do.


-- 
Aleksander
https://aleksander.es
___
ModemManager-devel mailing list
ModemManager-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/modemmanager-devel

Re: Sierra Wireless EM7455

[Aleksander Morgado]

On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Bjørn Mork  wrote:
>> What do you guys think, should we unconditionally try to send the FCC
>> auth via QMI over MBIM in the generic MBIM implementation? E.g. during
>> the power-up sequence.
>
> My memory lasts exactly this far: .
>
> Did we test the behaviour of non-Sierra modems supporting the QMI MBIM
> service?  If they quickly respond with an error on the unsupported QMI
> request, then I guess unconditional is fine.
>
> How difficult will it be to restrict this to Sierra modems with QMI
> service support?  Or was that the set you meant we should
> unconditionally try the command on?  If so, then I say "go!".

I tried the QMI MBIM service in my Ericsson MBIM modem and it just
kindly replied that it didn't know anything about that service, which
is what I would expect from every other vendor.

When I said unconditionally I meant for every MBIM modem out there,
not just Sierra based ones.

-- 
Aleksander
https://aleksander.es
___
ModemManager-devel mailing list
ModemManager-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/modemmanager-devel

Re: Sierra Wireless EM7455

[Bjørn Mork]

Aleksander Morgado  writes:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 12:27 AM, Ralph Plawetzki  wrote:
>> My modem needs that too and I can get it online, but as described it
>> gets a local IP then. From searching the web, many people had problems
>> getting the modem online or getting an IP at all.
>
> This is interesting then; the modem does get online (as opposed to the
> QMI modems, which fail to set the full-power mode), and it even gets
> an IP assigned, but then no traffic flows through the interface?
>
> The work I've been doing in the qmi-over-mbim branch from ModemManager
> would not work if this is the case, as it assumed that for MBIM modems
> the failure would be when getting online.
>
> And if this is true, then what we need to do is unconditionally try to
> send the FCC auth via QMI over MBIM for all these modems; maybe even
> as a generic thing in the MBIM implementation, as likely other modems
> from other vendors will just give an error when trying to use that
> specific MBIM service.
>
> What do you guys think, should we unconditionally try to send the FCC
> auth via QMI over MBIM in the generic MBIM implementation? E.g. during
> the power-up sequence.

My memory lasts exactly this far: .

Did we test the behaviour of non-Sierra modems supporting the QMI MBIM
service?  If they quickly respond with an error on the unsupported QMI
request, then I guess unconditional is fine.

How difficult will it be to restrict this to Sierra modems with QMI
service support?  Or was that the set you meant we should
unconditionally try the command on?  If so, then I say "go!".


Bjørn
___
ModemManager-devel mailing list
ModemManager-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/modemmanager-devel

Re: Sierra Wireless EM7455

[Bjørn Mork]

Ralph Plawetzki  writes:
> Am 09.06.2016 um 18:03 schrieb Aleksander Morgado:
>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 12:27 AM, Ralph Plawetzki  wrote:
>> This is interesting then; the modem does get online (as opposed to the
>> QMI modems, which fail to set the full-power mode), and it even gets
>> an IP assigned, but then no traffic flows through the interface?
>
> Well it gets an IP like '100.75.187.228' e.g. AFAIK this is for private
> networks. ModemManager gui shows some packets, but I connot use the
> internet with that IP.

That should work, but with NAT in your ISPs network.  The address is
part of the "Shared Address Space" for carrier grade NAT.  See
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6598

If it doesn't work for you then there is something else wrong.  Your
operator has assigned that address to your link, so we must assume it is
intended to work.  But maybe not for Internet?  Are there other APNs you
can use?  Can you verify that the APN you are using works (for Internet
access) on e.g. a phone?


Bjørn
___
ModemManager-devel mailing list
ModemManager-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/modemmanager-devel

Re: Sierra Wireless EM7455

[Ralph Plawetzki]

Am 09.06.2016 um 18:03 schrieb Aleksander Morgado:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 12:27 AM, Ralph Plawetzki  wrote:
> This is interesting then; the modem does get online (as opposed to the
> QMI modems, which fail to set the full-power mode), and it even gets
> an IP assigned, but then no traffic flows through the interface?

Well it gets an IP like '100.75.187.228' e.g. AFAIK this is for private
networks. ModemManager gui shows some packets, but I connot use the
internet with that IP.

> The work I've been doing in the qmi-over-mbim branch from ModemManager
> would not work if this is the case, as it assumed that for MBIM modems
> the failure would be when getting online.

Maybe it works for all other people that have trouble gut the modem online.
I compiled the lastest branches of ModemManager, libqmi and libmbim
yesterday and could get the modem online with NetworkManager, without
issueing FCC auth before manually and got the 100 IP again.

Kind regards,
Ralph

___
ModemManager-devel mailing list
ModemManager-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/modemmanager-devel

Re: Sierra Wireless EM7455

[Ralph Plawetzki]

Am 09.06.2016 um 17:09 schrieb Dan Williams:
> QMI and MBIM are just different ways to talk to the modem's firmware.
>  Like languages.  QMI is proprietary to Qualcomm, older than MBIM, and
> ties much more closely to the firmware architecture of Qualcomm chips.
> 
> MBIM is a "standard" protocol that is used by many vendors, and is
> built-in to Windows 8 and later, so if a modem supports MBIM then it
> doesn't need special drivers in Windows.  It's supported by many
> vendors, regardless of what chips are in their modems.
> 
> To make it easier to integrate into Windows, Qualcomm provided firmware
> to modem vendors that use their chips that speaks the MBIM protocol.
>  Some vendors choose to use it by default.  Some vendors also allow
> special commands to switch Qualcomm firmware between speaking QMI and
> MBIM by default.  This is what the Sierra tool that Bjorn is talking
> about does.

This is indeed very interesting. I googled a while but was not able to
find much about this topic. And none of it was that compact. Thank you!

> Only newer Sierra devices based on Qualcomm chips need this command.
>  Other vendors like Huawei, Novatel, ZTE, etc don't appear to need this
> QMI command, even if they use Qualcomm chips inside.  Not sure why
> Sierra is doing this, but they appear to be the only ones so far.

Ok. I thought it might be this way.

> If the modem's usb vendor ID is a Lenovo vendor ID, then it's a Lenovo
> customized Sierra-produced modem.  Vendors like Lenovo and HP do this
> to ensure that only approved modems are used in their own machines,
> technically to ensure that the modem and antenna solution are paired
> together.  This is theoretically for regulatory approval, since the
> modem *and* antenna are certified together, not just the modem itself.
>  Antenna can have a big effect on how the modem performs and whether it
> meets regulator requirements.  The cynical among us will say this is
> actually to ensure that users have to pay HP money for a modem instead
> of getting them on the secondary market though.

I see. I am not sure whether it says 'Lenovo' or 'Sierra' on lsusb.

Kind regards,
Ralph
___
ModemManager-devel mailing list
ModemManager-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/modemmanager-devel

Re: Sierra Wireless EM7455

[Dan Williams]

On Thu, 2016-06-09 at 09:27 +0200, Ralph Plawetzki wrote:
> Am 08.06.2016 um 15:25 schrieb Bjørn Mork:
> > 
> > Well, back to the real problem and possible soution: You can flip
> > the
> > modem into QMI mode by using a Sierra vendor specific QMI request,
> > via
> > the QMI-over-MBIM service.  I don't think this is implemented in
> > any
> > "proper" tools, but I have a perl script which can do it here:
> > http://git.mork.no/wwan.git/plain/scripts/swi_setusbcomp.pl
> > 
> > BIG FAT WARNING:  I would not have tried this if I were you.  The
> > script
> > is never tested on any modem with an OEM vendor PID originally,
> > AFAIK.
> Thanks for pointing me to this possibility. I will not try it.
> 
> In my experience with linux systems over the years "try and error"
> does
> not lead to anything. The only way out of an issue is to identify the
> problem.
> 
> Right this seems not possible here. I am neither a driver developer
> nor
> a hardware specialist. I understand that the modem has 'Qualcomm
> Snapdragon' in its name, so probably is running in QMI mode. I don't
> know what QMI mode really means and where the difference is compared
> to
> MBIM mode.

QMI and MBIM are just different ways to talk to the modem's firmware.
 Like languages.  QMI is proprietary to Qualcomm, older than MBIM, and
ties much more closely to the firmware architecture of Qualcomm chips.

MBIM is a "standard" protocol that is used by many vendors, and is
built-in to Windows 8 and later, so if a modem supports MBIM then it
doesn't need special drivers in Windows.  It's supported by many
vendors, regardless of what chips are in their modems.

To make it easier to integrate into Windows, Qualcomm provided firmware
to modem vendors that use their chips that speaks the MBIM protocol.
 Some vendors choose to use it by default.  Some vendors also allow
special commands to switch Qualcomm firmware between speaking QMI and
MBIM by default.  This is what the Sierra tool that Bjorn is talking
about does.

> I also understand that MBIM is more usual and used on a broader base
> and
> that newer devices need this magic code FCC authentication to get
> activated.

Only newer Sierra devices based on Qualcomm chips need this command.
 Other vendors like Huawei, Novatel, ZTE, etc don't appear to need this
QMI command, even if they use Qualcomm chips inside.  Not sure why
Sierra is doing this, but they appear to be the only ones so far.

> My modem needs that too and I can get it online, but as described it
> gets a local IP then. From searching the web, many people had
> problems
> getting the modem online or getting an IP at all.
> 
> So badly for me, there is something wrong with my hardware. As I do
> not
> know which of the involved components (NetworkManager, ModemManager
> or
> maybe the firmware) is responsible for retrieving an IP, from my
> point
> of view it does not make sense to go any further from this point.
> 
> > 
> > This is a Lenovo modem in a Lenovo laptop, right?  If not then I
> > got the
> > rest wrong.  But in case that is correct:
> Well, the laptop is bought from Lenovo, the modem inside identifies
> itself as 'Sierra Wireless EM7455 Qualcomm Snapdragon X7 LTE-A'. I
> don't
> know if that means that it is a Lenovo modem.

If the modem's usb vendor ID is a Lenovo vendor ID, then it's a Lenovo
customized Sierra-produced modem.  Vendors like Lenovo and HP do this
to ensure that only approved modems are used in their own machines,
technically to ensure that the modem and antenna solution are paired
together.  This is theoretically for regulatory approval, since the
modem *and* antenna are certified together, not just the modem itself.
 Antenna can have a big effect on how the modem performs and whether it
meets regulator requirements.  The cynical among us will say this is
actually to ensure that users have to pay HP money for a modem instead
of getting them on the secondary market though.

Dan
___
ModemManager-devel mailing list
ModemManager-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/modemmanager-devel