The telit plugin is based on two main ways of checking the purpose of
each port: udev tags flagging specific interfaces (with info taken
from Windows .inf drivers), or otherwise using AT#PORTCFG? to query
the modem about that information. If none of those applies, the port
is ignored by default.
In order to support devices that are not explicitly tagged, the plugin
shouldn't flag as ignored the AT-capable TTYs, instead they are now
grabbed as 'secondary': ports grabbed as secondary will never be used
for either primary/data IF there is another port flagged explicitly
for primary/data.
This fixes the support for modems with a single TTY and no explicit
port type hint tag, e.g. RS232 modems with just one single TTY where
there's no point in specifying port type hints: the port will be
grabbed as secondary, and then automatically promoted to primary/data
as there is no other port grabbed.
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100159
---
Hey Dan, Daniele, Carlo and everyone,
This patch makes it possible for the Telit plugin to support Telit modems that only expose a single TTY, without needing to manually add any port type hint.
What do you think?
---
plugins/telit/mm-common-telit.c | 19 +++++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/plugins/telit/mm-common-telit.c b/plugins/telit/mm-common-telit.c
index 78530c42..3f2cce5c 100644
--- a/plugins/telit/mm-common-telit.c
+++ b/plugins/telit/mm-common-telit.c
@@ -84,11 +84,22 @@ telit_grab_port (MMPlugin *self,
} else
ptype = MM_PORT_TYPE_IGNORED;
} else {
- /* If the port was tagged by the udev rules but isn't a primary or secondary,
- * then ignore it to guard against race conditions if a device just happens
- * to show up with more than two AT-capable ports.
+ /* If the port isn't explicitly tagged as primary, secondary, or gps
+ * port, we will fallback to flagging it as secondary, but only if it
+ * probed AT successfully.
+ *
+ * This is so that we support the case where a single TTY is exposed
+ * by the modem and no explicit port type hint is specified.
+ *
+ * From the modem point of view, only the AT_FLAG_PRIMARY would be
+ * important, as that is the port that would end up getting used for PPP
+ * in this case, so having multiple secondary ports, if that ever
+ * happened, wouldn't be an issue.
*/
- ptype = MM_PORT_TYPE_IGNORED;
+ if (mm_port_probe_is_at (probe))
+ pflags = MM_PORT_SERIAL_AT_FLAG_SECONDARY;
+ else
+ ptype = MM_PORT_TYPE_IGNORED;
}
return mm_base_modem_grab_port (modem,
--
2.12.0