Send ofono mailing list submissions to ofono(a)ofono.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.ofono.org/listinfo/ofono or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ofono-request(a)ofono.org You can reach the person managing the list at ofono-owner(a)ofono.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of ofono digest..." Today's Topics: 1. [PATCH v2 2/2] huawei: fix online logic (Kalle Valo) 2. Re: Reg: Memory capacity exceeded (Denis Kenzior) 3. Re: ofono gprs_primary_context description (Denis Kenzior) 4. Re: Reg: Memory capacity exceeded (Aki Niemi) 5. RE: Reg: Memory capacity exceeded (Jeevaka.Badrappan(a)elektrobit.com) 6. Re: Reg: Memory capacity exceeded (Denis Kenzior) 7. Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] huawei: poll sim state (Marcel Holtmann) 8. Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] huawei: fix online logic (Marcel Holtmann) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 15:40:33 +0300 From: Kalle Valo <kalle.valo(a)canonical.com&gt; To: ofono(a)ofono.org Subject: [PATCH v2 2/2] huawei: fix online logic Message-ID: <20100920124033.12498.3545.stgit(a)potku.valot.fi&gt; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" The recently introduced online support to huawei didn't work with my Huawei E1552. The problem was that with command AT+CFUN=1;+CFUN=5 the modem didn't initialise the sim state properly. To fix this I changed the logic so that CFUN=5 is called only after the sim state has switched to a valid state. Now my Huawei E1552 works with connman again. PIN locked SIMs still won't work. The problem is that it takes some time for the sim state to go to a valid state: Sep 20 15:01:57 dell-m520 ofonod[12451]: Pcui:< \r\n+CPIN: READY\r\n\r\nOK\r\n [...] Sep 20 15:02:00 dell-m520 ofonod[12451]: huawei: invalid sim state in post online (0) [...] Sep 20 15:02:01 dell-m520 ofonod[12451]: Pcui:< \r\n^SIMST:1\r\n I don't know why it takes so long to get a valid state. There is also another issue, in "cold start" case the phonebook initialisation fails: Sep 20 14:34:24 dell-m520 ofonod[11939]: Pcui:> AT+CPBS=?\r Sep 20 14:34:24 dell-m520 ofonod[11939]: Pcui:< \r\n+CME ERROR: SIM busy\r\n But in "warm start" it seems to work: Sep 20 14:38:59 dell-m520 ofonod[12091]: Pcui:> AT+CPBS=?\r Sep 20 14:38:59 dell-m520 ofonod[12091]: Pcui:< \r\n+CPBS: ("SM","EN","ON")\r\n\r\nOK\r\n I consider this as a minor issue and didn't investigate it at all. --- plugins/huawei.c | 77 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- 1 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) diff --git a/plugins/huawei.c b/plugins/huawei.c index 2f605ee..27473a8 100644 --- a/plugins/huawei.c +++ b/plugins/huawei.c @@ -163,6 +163,22 @@ static void ussdmode_support_cb(gboolean ok, GAtResult *result, ussdmode_query_cb, data, NULL); } +static void cfun_offline(gboolean ok, GAtResult *result, gpointer user_data) +{ + struct ofono_modem *modem = user_data; + struct huawei_data *data = ofono_modem_get_data(modem); + + if (!ok) { + ofono_modem_set_powered(modem, FALSE); + return; + } + + if (data->sim == NULL) + return; + + ofono_sim_inserted_notify(data->sim, TRUE); +} + static gboolean notify_sim_state(struct ofono_modem *modem, enum huawei_sim_state sim_state) { @@ -170,17 +186,33 @@ static gboolean notify_sim_state(struct ofono_modem *modem, DBG("%d", sim_state); - if (sim_state == HUAWEI_SIM_STATE_NOT_EXISTENT) { - ofono_sim_inserted_notify(data->sim, FALSE); + data->sim_state = sim_state; + switch (sim_state) { + case HUAWEI_SIM_STATE_NOT_EXISTENT: /* SIM is not ready, try again a bit later */ return TRUE; + case HUAWEI_SIM_STATE_INVALID_OR_LOCKED: + ofono_modem_set_powered(modem, TRUE); + + return FALSE; + case HUAWEI_SIM_STATE_VALID: + case HUAWEI_SIM_STATE_INVALID_CS: + case HUAWEI_SIM_STATE_INVALID_PS: + case HUAWEI_SIM_STATE_INVALID_PS_AND_CS: + /* + * In the "warm start" case the modem skips + * HUAWEI_SIM_STATE_INVALID_OR_LOCKED altogether, so need + * to set power also here + */ + ofono_modem_set_powered(modem, TRUE); + + g_at_chat_send(data->pcui, "AT+CFUN=5", none_prefix, + cfun_offline, modem, NULL); + + return FALSE; } - ofono_sim_inserted_notify(data->sim, TRUE); - - data->sim_state = sim_state; - return FALSE; } @@ -347,24 +379,24 @@ static void cvoice_query_cb(gboolean ok, GAtResult *result, gint mode, rate, bits, period; if (!ok) - goto done; + return; g_at_result_iter_init(&iter, result); if (!g_at_result_iter_next(&iter, "^CVOICE:")) - goto done; + return; if (!g_at_result_iter_next_number(&iter, &mode)) - goto done; + return; if (!g_at_result_iter_next_number(&iter, &rate)) - goto done; + return; if (!g_at_result_iter_next_number(&iter, &bits)) - goto done; + return; if (!g_at_result_iter_next_number(&iter, &period)) - goto done; + return; data->voice = TRUE; @@ -383,9 +415,6 @@ static void cvoice_query_cb(gboolean ok, GAtResult *result, /* check available voice ports */ g_at_chat_send(data->pcui, "AT^DDSETEX=?", none_prefix, NULL, NULL, NULL); - -done: - ofono_modem_set_powered(modem, TRUE); } static void cvoice_support_cb(gboolean ok, GAtResult *result, @@ -396,21 +425,16 @@ static void cvoice_support_cb(gboolean ok, GAtResult *result, GAtResultIter iter; if (!ok) - goto done; + return; g_at_result_iter_init(&iter, result); if (!g_at_result_iter_next(&iter, "^CVOICE:")) - goto done; + return; /* query current voice setting */ g_at_chat_send(data->pcui, "AT^CVOICE?", cvoice_prefix, cvoice_query_cb, modem, NULL); - - return; - -done: - ofono_modem_set_powered(modem, TRUE); } static void cfun_enable(gboolean ok, GAtResult *result, gpointer user_data) @@ -550,7 +574,7 @@ static int huawei_enable(struct ofono_modem *modem) g_at_chat_send(data->pcui, "ATE0", none_prefix, NULL, NULL, NULL); - g_at_chat_send(data->pcui, "AT+CFUN=1;+CFUN=5", none_prefix, + g_at_chat_send(data->pcui, "AT+CFUN=1", none_prefix, cfun_enable, modem, NULL); query_sim_state(modem); @@ -667,8 +691,13 @@ static void huawei_post_online(struct ofono_modem *modem) struct ofono_netreg *netreg; struct ofono_message_waiting *mw; - if (data->sim_state == HUAWEI_SIM_STATE_INVALID_PS_AND_CS) + if (data->sim_state != HUAWEI_SIM_STATE_VALID && + data->sim_state != HUAWEI_SIM_STATE_INVALID_CS && + data->sim_state != HUAWEI_SIM_STATE_INVALID_PS) { + ofono_info("huawei: invalid sim state in post online (%d)", + data->sim_state); return; + } netreg = ofono_netreg_create(modem, OFONO_VENDOR_HUAWEI, "atmodem", data->pcui); ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 07:44:45 -0500 From: Denis Kenzior <denkenz(a)gmail.com&gt; To: ofono(a)ofono.org Subject: Re: Reg: Memory capacity exceeded Message-ID: <4C97573D.90406(a)gmail.com&gt; Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Jeevaka, On 09/20/2010 07:39 AM, Jeevaka.Badrappan(a)elektrobit.com wrote: > Hi, > >> Of course, one can argue whether this feature really has some real >> world relevance or is purely theoretical. >> >> I wonder if it is a type approval requirement to support? > >> I'm afraid there is a PICS case for this thing. I cannot recall how we > got N900 through this particular hoop, but probably we just waived this > particular test case irrelevant. > > correct. There is a USIM conformance case on this message capacitiy > exceeded information. As per the 3GPP 31.121 specification section 8.2: > > "If all SMS data field are full and furthermore all memory capacity > reserved for SMS inside the ME is filled up to maximum and a SM(Short > Message) was rejected, then this shall be indicated in the SMS Status > file.(EFsmss)" The thing is, oFono configures SMS for direct delivery (e.g. no SM/ME storage). And even if direct delivery does not work (e.g. crappy modem or Class 2 / Class 3 messages) oFono still removes the SMS as soon as it is delivered. We should never hit a sim/me memory full conditions. So I don't see how this test case even applies. Regards, -Denis ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 07:49:48 -0500 From: Denis Kenzior <denkenz(a)gmail.com&gt; To: ofono(a)ofono.org Subject: Re: ofono gprs_primary_context description Message-ID: <4C97586C.8000801(a)gmail.com&gt; Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Hi Laurent, On 09/20/2010 04:20 AM, Laurent THOMAS wrote: > Hi, > > > > According to the interface org.ofono.ConnectionContext description, the > property ?Name? is a free short string used to describe the context. > > Extract from ?conman-api.txt? > > /Properties string Name [readwrite]/ > > / / > > / The name is a free form string that > describes this/ > > / context. The name should not be > empty and limited/ > > / to a short string for display purposes./ > > > > But according to source code (version 0.28), this attribute is now only > affected with the context String Type (?internet?, ?wap? or ?mms?) > > > > is it really the expected behaviour or did I miss something ? By default the Name is set to the context type. E.g. creating an "internet" context results in the name being set to "internet." You can still reset the Name later to whatever you wish. ~/ofono-master$ test/list-contexts [ /phonesim ] [ /phonesim/context1 ] Username = Protocol = ip Name = Foobar Settings = { } Active = 0 AccessPointName = Password = Type = internet Regards, -Denis ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 15:53:13 +0300 From: Aki Niemi <aki.niemi(a)nokia.com&gt; To: &quot;ofono(a)ofono.org&quot; <ofono(a)ofono.org&gt; Subject: Re: Reg: Memory capacity exceeded Message-ID: <1284987193.12393.485.camel(a)tucson.research.nokia.com&gt; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Mon, 2010-09-20 at 14:29 +0200, ext Pekka Pessi wrote: > I'm afraid there is a PICS case for this thing. I cannot recall how we > got N900 through this particular hoop, but probably we just waived > this particular test case irrelevant. I know we have the machinery in place in N900 to report memory exceeded to the network. And I even remember it getting tested at some point, basically flooding /var/spool/sms is enough to trigger it. If this can be waived, though, good riddance. Cheers, Aki ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 17:08:41 +0300 From: <Jeevaka.Badrappan(a)elektrobit.com&gt; To: <denkenz(a)gmail.com&gt;, <ofono(a)ofono.org&gt; Subject: RE: Reg: Memory capacity exceeded Message-ID: < B668883EB5DD7144ADFC248A72176EA802A51A03(a)fioues07.ebgroup.elektrobit.com&gt; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi Denis, > The thing is, oFono configures SMS for direct delivery (e.g. no SM/ME storage). And even if direct delivery does not work (e.g. crappy modem or Class 2 / Class 3 messages) oFono still removes the SMS > as soon as it is delivered. We should never hit a sim/me memory full conditions. > So I don't see how this test case even applies. Little bit lost now. Are we speaking about the sending or receiving of SMS? Memory capacity exceeded applies to incoming SMS. Incoming SMS can be stored in SIM or in ME storage. If the SMS storage for incoming SMS is full, then the ME can inform the network that it can't handle any more class 1/class 2 incoming SMS due to maximum memory capacity reached. Once the user frees some memory by deleting some messages, then ME can inform network that it is ready now to receive messages. So, I believe this test case applies but as Pessi Pekka said we can waive this test case. Regards, jeevaka ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 09:11:45 -0500 From: Denis Kenzior <denkenz(a)gmail.com&gt; To: Jeevaka.Badrappan(a)elektrobit.com Cc: ofono(a)ofono.org Subject: Re: Reg: Memory capacity exceeded Message-ID: <4C976BA1.30600(a)gmail.com&gt; Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Jeevaka, On 09/20/2010 09:08 AM, Jeevaka.Badrappan(a)elektrobit.com wrote: > > Hi Denis, > >> The thing is, oFono configures SMS for direct delivery (e.g. no SM/ME > storage). And even if direct delivery does not work (e.g. crappy modem > or Class 2 / Class 3 messages) oFono still removes the SMS >> as soon as it is delivered. We should never hit a sim/me memory full > conditions. > >> So I don't see how this test case even applies. > > Little bit lost now. Are we speaking about the sending or receiving of > SMS? > > Memory capacity exceeded applies to incoming SMS. Incoming SMS can be > stored in SIM or in ME storage. If the SMS storage for incoming SMS is > full, then the ME can inform the network that it can't handle any more > class 1/class 2 incoming SMS due to maximum memory capacity reached. > Once the user frees some memory by deleting some messages, then ME can > inform network that it is ready now to receive messages. So, I believe > this test case applies but as Pessi Pekka said we can waive this test > case. I know exactly the case you're talking about, but as I mentioned before, oFono does not configure the modem to store on SIM or ME. The messages are routed directly to oFono. See drivers/atmodem/sms.c for more details. The only messages that *might* get routed to SM/ME are Class 2 / 3 messages. These are automatically deleted on reception by the sms driver. The 'memory capacity reached' can simply never happen assuming sane hardware. Regards, -Denis ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 02:09:36 +0900 From: Marcel Holtmann <marcel(a)holtmann.org&gt; To: ofono(a)ofono.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] huawei: poll sim state Message-ID: <1285002576.20811.36.camel(a)localhost.localdomain&gt; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi Kalle, > On my Huawei E1552 when I plug in the modem (ie. cold start) with PIN locked > SIM, the sim state is 255 (HUAWEI_SIM_STATE_NOT_EXISTENT). As the modem > doesn't send ^SIMST notifications, poll the sim state until it's ready. > > In theory it might be possible to do this better, for example follow > ^BOOT notifications or something, but it's unknown what parameter we > should check for. > --- > plugins/huawei.c | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------- > 1 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) patch has been applied. Regards Marcel ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 02:09:55 +0900 From: Marcel Holtmann <marcel(a)holtmann.org&gt; To: ofono(a)ofono.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] huawei: fix online logic Message-ID: <1285002595.20811.37.camel(a)localhost.localdomain&gt; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi Kalle, > The recently introduced online support to huawei didn't work with my > Huawei E1552. The problem was that with command AT+CFUN=1;+CFUN=5 > the modem didn't initialise the sim state properly. > > To fix this I changed the logic so that CFUN=5 is called only after the sim > state has switched to a valid state. Now my Huawei E1552 works with connman > again. > > PIN locked SIMs still won't work. The problem is that it takes some time for > the sim state to go to a valid state: > > Sep 20 15:01:57 dell-m520 ofonod[12451]: Pcui:< \r\n+CPIN: READY\r\n\r\nOK\r\n > [...] > Sep 20 15:02:00 dell-m520 ofonod[12451]: huawei: invalid sim state in post online (0) > [...] > Sep 20 15:02:01 dell-m520 ofonod[12451]: Pcui:< \r\n^SIMST:1\r\n > > I don't know why it takes so long to get a valid state. > > There is also another issue, in "cold start" case the phonebook > initialisation fails: > > Sep 20 14:34:24 dell-m520 ofonod[11939]: Pcui:> AT+CPBS=?\r > Sep 20 14:34:24 dell-m520 ofonod[11939]: Pcui:< \r\n+CME ERROR: SIM busy\r\n > > But in "warm start" it seems to work: > > Sep 20 14:38:59 dell-m520 ofonod[12091]: Pcui:> AT+CPBS=?\r > Sep 20 14:38:59 dell-m520 ofonod[12091]: Pcui:< \r\n+CPBS: ("SM","EN","ON")\r\n\r\nOK\r\n > > I consider this as a minor issue and didn't investigate it at all. > --- > plugins/huawei.c | 77 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- > 1 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) patch has been applied. Regards Marcel ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ ofono mailing list ofono(a)ofono.org http://lists.ofono.org/listinfo/ofono End of ofono Digest, Vol 17, Issue 71 *************************************