[PATCH 2/2] qmicli: add support LOC

[Aleksander Morgado]

>>>  src/qmicli/Makefile.am  |   1 +
>>>  src/qmicli/qmicli-loc.c | 305 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  src/qmicli/qmicli.c     |  11 ++
>>>  src/qmicli/qmicli.h     |   7 ++
>>>  4 files changed, 324 insertions(+)
>>>  create mode 100644 src/qmicli/qmicli-loc.c
>>>
>>> +
>>> +static GOptionEntry entries[] = {
>>> +    {
>>> +        "loc-location", 0, 0, G_OPTION_ARG_NONE, &show_location,
>>> +        "Show location",
>>> +        NULL,
>>> +    },
>>> +    {
>>> +        "loc-satellites", 0, 0, G_OPTION_ARG_NONE, &show_satellites,
>>> +        "Show satellite report",
>>> +        NULL,
>>> +    },
>>> +    {
>>> +        "loc-nmea", 0, 0, G_OPTION_ARG_NONE, &show_nmea,
>>> +        "Show NMEA string",
>>> +        NULL,
>>> +    },
>>> +    {
>>> +        "loc-continuous", 0, 0, G_OPTION_ARG_NONE, &print_continuous,
>>> +        "Print continuous updates",
>>> +        NULL,
>>> +    },
>>
>> I would expect to see a "loc-start" command here (i.e. not automagically
>> started by the other commands). Also, is there a way to "loc-stop"? The idea
>> is that qmicli should provide actions as closest as possible to the actual
>> QMI operations, nothing more than that.
>>
>> Then, I see that we are getting all info via indications instead of request/response, so maybe something like:
>>
>> loc-position-report     // following the "position-report" signal name
>> loc-gnss-satellite-info // following the "gnss-satellite-info" signal name
>> loc-nmea                // following the "nmea" signal name
>>
>> And how about "loc-follow" instead of continuous? Just trying to find some
>> name similar to the other option that enables some long-time monitoring
>> (--wds-follow-network when given additionally to --wds-start-network).
>>
>> One thing that we should definitely allow is to request all 3 things at the same time, e.g. if we want to leave monitoring for all events we could do:
>>
>> qmicli --loc-position-report --loc-gnss-satellite-info --loc-nmea --loc-follow
>>
>> Or if we just want to get max 1 of each, we would run the same without --loc-follow and stop as soon as we get one of each.
>
> I am not sure about how to handle the NMEA signals.
> NMEA actuall only makes sense in --loc-follow mode, as all different NMEA
> messages are grouped into the same signal and are also emitted when no GPS fix
> has been aquired. This makes a oneshot NMEA mode quite useless in my opinion.
> For consistency I would error out if --loc-nmea is specified without
> --loc-follow.
> What do you think?
>

Yes, makes sense.

-- 
Aleksander
https://aleksander.es