**** BEGIN LOGGING AT Thu Jun 17 02:59:57 2010
Jun 17 03:04:22 <denkenz> balrog-k1n: hmm, this seems wrong:
Jun 17 03:04:23 <denkenz> -               if (handler == NULL)
Jun 17 03:04:25 <denkenz> -                       continue;
Jun 17 03:06:58 <balrog-k1n> denkenz: hmm yeah, i guess i assumed you wouldn't call parse_dataobj() to parse an object for which there's no parser implemented
Jun 17 03:07:24 <denkenz> We were doing this in the beginning
Jun 17 03:07:30 <denkenz> Now there probably isn't any reason
Jun 17 03:08:57 <balrog-k1n> we would need to check that Comprehension Requires is FALSE when skipping
Jun 17 03:09:08 <balrog-k1n> *Required
Jun 17 03:09:42 * balrog-k1n will bbl
Jun 17 06:18:06 <kvalo> denkenz: I need MCC and MNC in connman. any estimates when you find time to implement the ofono part?
Jun 17 06:23:45 <holtmann> kvalo: They are there. In the SimManager interface.
Jun 17 06:25:46 <holtmann> The addition in the NetworkRegistration is just for being able to construct a fake temp name.
Jun 17 06:26:12 <holtmann> Also you can just implement that ConnMan patch for using them. They will be identical to what is in the SimManager interface.
Jun 17 06:28:26 <kvalo> holtmann: sorry, I didn't understand. which interface connman should use, NetworkRegistration or SimManager?
Jun 17 06:28:52 <holtmann> kvalo: Depends on what you are trying to do.
Jun 17 06:29:04 <holtmann> What is it that you wanna do?
Jun 17 06:29:17 <kvalo> I wast just want to have MCC and MNC available on the service API
Jun 17 06:30:12 <kvalo> I can implement the connman part, but I don't have time this week to do the ofono part. really busy now
Jun 17 06:31:36 <holtmann> kvalo: For these you need to use the MCC/MNC from SimManager interface.
Jun 17 06:31:56 <holtmann> And they are there already.
Jun 17 06:33:05 <kvalo> holtmann: yeah, I see them. excellent, thanks for the comments.
Jun 17 06:33:11 <holtmann> And I was actually considering to remove these properties.
Jun 17 06:33:31 <kvalo> oh
Jun 17 17:04:09 <denkenz> padovan: I'm going to integrate some of your patches, but will bastardize them a little
Jun 17 17:04:25 <denkenz> padovan: You around to send updates?
Jun 17 17:14:24 <padovan> denkenz: not yet, I'm working on the dun daemon, but it is just a prototype, I intend to give more attention to DUN from next days until GSoC ends.
Jun 17 17:15:12 <denkenz> so I'm taking patches 1,2,3, 5, and 6
Jun 17 17:15:22 <denkenz> I'd like to you rework patch 4 and 7
Jun 17 17:20:10 <denkenz> padovan: Note that bluetooth.[ch] should really be a library, similar to gatchat
Jun 17 17:20:22 <denkenz> Not a plugin like it is now, but I let you figure this out
Jun 17 17:21:33 <padovan> denkenz: ok, I'll do that.
Jun 17 17:23:37 <padovan> denkenz: does oFono compile without patch 4?
Jun 17 17:25:10 <denkenz> it does now
Jun 17 17:26:47 <denkenz> And it would still compile if you don't set the strict flags, so you can still bisect
Jun 17 22:04:25 <balrog-k1n> is AT+CFUN=1 necessary for emergency calls?
Jun 17 22:04:58 <denkenz> generally yes
Jun 17 22:05:52 <balrog-k1n> on both the MBM and the calypso, the hardware suggests that AT+CFUN=1 should really be done after sim authentication
Jun 17 22:05:54 <denkenz> However, due to the difficulty of validating that assertion, take it with a grain of salt ;)
Jun 17 22:07:54 <denkenz> where do you see that? I've never gotten that impression
Jun 17 22:08:49 <balrog-k1n> on the calypso i think someone here on the channel said that AT+CFUN didn't work for cards with a PIN, a couple of weeks ago
Jun 17 22:09:26 <balrog-k1n> and we also know that the profile download is done during AT+CFUN=1, but profile download seemingly needs to be done after authentication
Jun 17 22:10:11 <balrog-k1n> now i see same problem on the MBM, i never get the initial Set Up Menu if AT*STKC is done after AT+CFUN
Jun 17 22:10:30 <denkenz> Profile download depends on the CPIN being entered
Jun 17 22:10:42 <denkenz> so stk is very much a post_sim action
Jun 17 22:11:30 <balrog-k1n> yeah, however on both modems profile download seems to only work before AT+CFUN=1
Jun 17 22:11:57 <balrog-k1n> actually it works on the MBM, but we don't get the initial proactive command
Jun 17 22:12:18 <denkenz> See, this depends on the modem
Jun 17 22:12:19 <balrog-k1n> i know the sim sends the command, because i can respond to it
Jun 17 22:12:25 <denkenz> MBM starts in mode=4, which is flight mode
Jun 17 22:12:38 <balrog-k1n> right
Jun 17 22:12:48 <denkenz> So in that respect its already 'on'
Jun 17 22:13:18 <balrog-k1n> however only in that mode=4 it seems stk can be initialised reliably
Jun 17 22:14:43 <denkenz> What happens if you turn the modem off back to mode=4
Jun 17 22:14:54 <denkenz> Can you re-initialize stk then?
Jun 17 22:15:18 <balrog-k1n> let me check
Jun 17 22:16:09 <denkenz> To me it sounds like the init procedure has to be done once
Jun 17 22:16:35 <denkenz> However, calypso might indeed require cfun=1 after pin check because it has a separate 'on' button
Jun 17 22:18:31 <denkenz> Also, from a modem that implements the same at dialect as the calypso: "Notes Commands which interact with ME that are accepted when ME is pending SIM PIN,SIM PUK, or PH-SIM are: +CGMI, +CGMM, +CGMR, +CGSN, D112; (emergency call),+CPAS, +CFUN, +CPIN, After power on the modem needs 20-25 seconds to initialize and completely read the SIM."
Jun 17 22:22:48 <denkenz> and a funny comment from ogsmd: 
Jun 17 22:22:50 <denkenz>         # FIXME: So far I have not seen any modem where +CFUN=1 _really_ fails
Jun 17 22:22:51 <denkenz>         # (yes, they may respond with a +CME error, but still they turn on full functionality)
Jun 17 22:23:54 <balrog-k1n> heh
Jun 17 22:26:16 <denkenz> So that is something to check, does calypso support mode=4 for flight mode
Jun 17 22:26:49 <denkenz> or is mode=0 considered flight mode, can you run CRSM while in this mode
Jun 17 22:27:03 <denkenz> May be we need to move CFUN=1 to the set_online method
Jun 17 22:28:39 <balrog-k1n> i'm trying what happens on the mbm if CFUN=1 is moved to post_sim, will report later
Jun 17 22:30:01 <denkenz> ok, *goes back to reviewing ppp patches*
Jun 17 22:49:24 <kristenc> denkenz: is it practical to assume left alignment is the default alignment for display text?
Jun 17 22:50:22 <denkenz> kristenc: Sounds reasonable to me, though there are probably countries with right aligned text
Jun 17 22:50:31 <denkenz> kristenc: Cross that bridge when you come to it
Jun 17 22:50:59 <kristenc> denkenz: ok, great :).
Jun 17 22:52:27 <balrog-k1n> i also thought let text_to_html assume left alignment for now, with a comment that it may need to take a language parameter in the future
Jun 18 01:36:48 <yang_office> denkenz: I missed the part "if (!g_at_result_iter_next_number(&iter, &status))" in cusd_parse(), so now I am convinced the original code is correct. Could you please ignore the patch 3 and 4, and comment/apply the others?
Jun 18 02:47:06 <denkenz> yang_office: no problem
**** ENDING LOGGING AT Fri Jun 18 02:59:57 2010