[PATCH v2] Add custom flow control settings for Telit HE910, UE910, UL865

[Dan Williams]

On Fri, 2015-03-13 at 09:36 +0100, Daniele Palmas wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 2015-03-12 22:11 GMT+01:00 Aleksander Morgado <aleksander at aleksander.es>:
> > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Ben Chan <benchan at chromium.org> wrote:
> >> Not sure about UE910 / UL865, we probably want to ignore a few
> >> interfaces on HE910 as these ports aren't responding to AT probe and
> >> don't want to waste extra time probing them. I can rebase my patch
> >> earlier to all the following rules. What do you think?
> >>
> >>
> >> ATTRS{idVendor}=="1bc7", ATTRS{idProduct}=="0021",
> >> ENV{.MM_USBIFNUM}=="02", ENV{ID_MM_PORT_IGNORE}="1"
> >> ATTRS{idVendor}=="1bc7", ATTRS{idProduct}=="0021",
> >> ENV{.MM_USBIFNUM}=="04", ENV{ID_MM_PORT_IGNORE}="1"
> >> ATTRS{idVendor}=="1bc7", ATTRS{idProduct}=="0021",
> >> ENV{.MM_USBIFNUM}=="08", ENV{ID_MM_PORT_IGNORE}="1"
> >> ATTRS{idVendor}=="1bc7", ATTRS{idProduct}=="0021",
> >> ENV{.MM_USBIFNUM}=="0a", ENV{ID_MM_PORT_IGNORE}="1"
> >> ATTRS{idVendor}=="1bc7", ATTRS{idProduct}=="0021",
> >> ENV{.MM_USBIFNUM}=="0c", ENV{ID_MM_PORT_IGNORE}="1"
> >
> > Daniele, what do you think about this? I don't have any of those
> > modems to check that myself.
> >
> > If the ports don't reply to AT or anything, then what are those ports
> > for? (just wondering) I guess one may be a GPS data port, but what
> > about the others? Also, what's the kernel driver managing those ports?
> >
> 
> HE910/UE910/UL865 use the standard cdc-acm driver.
> 
> Some useful information can be found in "HE910/UE910/UL865 Families Ports
> Arrangements User Guide" (it can be found in Telit website).
> 
> The AT command AT#PORTCFG sets the ports behaviour.
> 
> For the factory setting (#PORTCFG=1) only the two interfaces I put in
> the udev rules are linked to AT parsers, so I think it is safe to
> ignore the other
> ones.
> 
> The other ports are used with different #PORTCFG settings (for modem traces,
> gps, additional AT parser, appzone...)

Yeah, this is what I was afraid of, and one reason why we have the MM
probing behavior.  The port configuration can often be changed in
firmware (or by a firmware update) so the same static udev rules cannot
always be used.

*however*, we can ship a set of default udev rules and describe the port
configuration it should be used for, and then individual users or
packagers can override those rules for their specific use-cases if they
wish.  eg, we could have a 77-telit-910-portcfg-1.rules and
77-telit-910-portcfg-5.rules which correspond to each #PORTCFG layout
for each modem?

Dan