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

[Daniele Palmas]

Hi Dan,

2015-03-13 15:20 GMT+01:00 Dan Williams <dcbw at redhat.com>:
> 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?
>

This could be a possible solution: the default could be the factory
setting, then we can identify the most important #PORTCFG layouts
among the 12 provided by the command.

Regards,
Daniele