**** BEGIN LOGGING AT Tue Jan 04 02:59:58 2011 Jan 04 12:05:16 denkenz: holtmann: should ofono_dbus_signal_dict_property_changed() and ofono_dbus_dict_append_dict() work with types other than string? Jan 04 12:11:28 looking at the implementation, it seems to be a bug Jan 04 12:13:01 append_dict_variant() calls dbus_message_iter_append_basic() that, according to docs expects a "char **" if type is string or "dbus_int32_t *" and alike Jan 04 12:35:37 denkenz: holtmann: http://codepad.org/IgS4nMIw seems to fix for me Jan 04 12:35:50 i'll prepare a patch so we can discuss on ML Jan 04 12:54:51 denkenz, holtmann, I have working on making the ofono backend on bluetoothd to work with recent ofono releases, basically to buy some time until we have a proper solution inside ofono. Im gonna post a series of patches to ml so if you guys find something wrong please let me know. Jan 04 13:01:59 denkenz, holtmann, due hfp spec I decide to only use a modem once it has NetworkRegistration interface since without the network information the headset will be clueless about being online or not. Jan 04 17:37:34 denkenz: what do you mean by "drivers are free to return arrays on the stack, so you cannot assume ownership"? Jan 04 17:37:59 as in struct ofono_sim_pin_entries entries[4]; Jan 04 17:38:03 entries[0].foo = Jan 04 17:38:16 cb(4, entries) Jan 04 17:38:52 You can't assume the driver g_mallocs Jan 04 17:39:23 humn... Jan 04 17:40:18 This was more a comment for your GSList approach Jan 04 17:40:28 ok.... and can I assume it doesn't malloc? Jan 04 17:40:31 you assigned the GSList from the cb directly into the atom data structure Jan 04 17:40:45 No, you have to g_memdup Jan 04 17:41:10 yeah, i was assuming the driver malloc'ed the items Jan 04 17:41:37 The rule of thumb is, the memory passed from the core is owned by the core Jan 04 17:41:44 and vice versa Jan 04 17:41:48 Hence our heavy use of const Jan 04 17:42:41 ok, i'll fix this Jan 04 17:42:46 Though we forget in some places ;) Jan 04 17:42:56 :-) Jan 04 18:09:29 denkenz: humn... then maybe the array approach is easier, since it's copied on stack Jan 04 18:30:50 demarchi: Yep, sounds fine Jan 04 19:27:12 denkenz: ping Jan 04 19:28:03 yes? Jan 04 19:28:59 for some of the proactive commands, alpha identifier is optional Jan 04 19:29:29 NULL is possible for the alpha identifier not provided case Jan 04 19:29:53 denkenz: We are looking into contributing our changes made to phonesim in order for testing CDMA SMS. The changes we made right now are very simple at this stage and only support injecting raw CDMA SMS PDU byte stream. The few line of code change is embedded directly within currently phonesim source code. Wondering if you have any thoughts about how to enable CDMA support in phonesim. Jan 04 19:34:03 Jeevaka: sure, what are you getting at though? Jan 04 19:34:50 leiyu: I suspect you might want to run a different core call stack if you're in cdma mode Jan 04 19:35:06 leiyu: And maybe even a different .xml file Jan 04 19:37:38 denkenz: Yes, we may have to have different core call stack and we do have different .xml file in our change package. But I like to understand your view of how we should introduce CDMA support in phonesim. Is it Ok if we just submit the part we changed to enable CDMA SMS testing or you are looking forward for comprehensive RFC explaining how to add CDMA support in phonesim which will take bit more time. :-) Jan 04 19:38:19 answer for the question you have asked in the last review comment mail Jan 04 19:40:01 leiyu: Phonesim is such a mess I don't particularly care Jan 04 19:40:18 it is a dev tool and doesn't have to be too nice, as long as it doesn't become completely unmaintainable Jan 04 19:40:37 Ok, we will submit what we have and we are looking forward to any comments. :-) Jan 04 19:40:40 However, I'd like to see long term evolution towards a separate call stack & separate xml for a CDMA modem Jan 04 19:40:55 Jeevaka: I asked a question? Jan 04 19:40:56 denkenz: Agreed. Jan 04 19:41:21 denkenz: BTW, do you have chance to review my CDMA SMS patch? Jan 04 19:41:51 I was actually busy with another project ;) Jan 04 19:42:06 may be we can term it as clarification :) "Can in ever be null?" Jan 04 19:42:22 Jeevaka: Ah I see Jan 04 19:42:28 Jeevaka: Ok makes sense ;) Jan 04 19:43:04 leiyu: I will try to do a quick review, but I really want you guys to solicit feedback from Rajesh on the SMS part Jan 04 19:44:14 It will take me some time to spin up on the cdma sms spec Jan 04 19:44:19 denkenz: I will solicit feedback from Rajesh and anyone who likes to review but in the end I don't have control of their time. :-) Thanks. Jan 04 19:44:46 denkenz: Yes, CDMA SMS spec is a mess as you already know. Jan 04 19:45:01 They always are ;) Jan 04 19:45:31 Sometimes I wonder how i ever get dial tone when I pick up a phone Jan 04 19:46:12 denkenz, leiyu: as you might have seen, rajesh is not available in the irc. do you want me to inform rajesh on this or leiyu will you be able to contact rajesh Jan 04 19:46:59 Jeevaka: if you can ping Rajesh and solicit his feedback that will be great. Jan 04 19:47:21 Jeevaka: I don't have better way to get hold of Rajesh than you do. ;-) Jan 04 19:48:15 Jeevaka, denkenz: I will send a public post to ofono mailing list solicit feedback in general against CDMA including but not limited SMS. Including but not limited to Rajesh. As you can see, WindRiver folks are also working on CDMA. Jan 04 19:48:48 you're already soliciting feedback by the presence of the patches Jan 04 19:49:12 I meant more like 1:1 making sure that he reviews the code Jan 04 19:49:28 leiyu: you can send a reminder asking for comments :) Jan 04 19:49:28 denkenz: then, I will not send another post. I will trying to ping Rajesh offline then. Jan 04 19:49:38 jeevaka: yes, I will. Thanks. Jan 04 22:40:11 Jeevaka: Gah, please send a proper v2 series ;) Jan 04 22:46:36 sent now Jan 05 00:30:18 denkenz: I saw the command u are using for applying my change is this: git am --3way ~/merge/\[PATCH\ v2\,\ 2_7\]\ cdma-sms\:\ Add\ CDMA\ SMS\ Support.eml Jan 05 00:30:27 denkenz: are you trying to applying v2 of the patch? Jan 05 00:31:02 denkenz: I rebased and submitted v3 version of the patch. if you use v3 patch, it should be fine. I just tried "git apply" myself on v3 of the patch. **** ENDING LOGGING AT Wed Jan 05 02:59:58 2011