**** BEGIN LOGGING AT Wed Feb 02 02:59:58 2011
Feb 02 07:54:00 <LasseK> Hi. What is the plan regarding Neighbor cell info? I see that Antti Paila has sent an API proposal on 12th of January, but there was no comments to that in mailing list
Feb 02 08:09:09 <holtmann> LasseK: I have not yet looked at that again. Hope to get back on that soon.
Feb 02 10:10:39 <Jeevaka> holtmann: may i know the reason for issuing cfun=4 while we are enabling the modem
Feb 02 10:21:02 <holtmann> MBM ;)
Feb 02 10:21:30 <holtmann> If you do CFUN=0 on MBM hardware then it gets kicked of the USB bus. It is like RFKILL.
Feb 02 10:23:01 <Jeevaka> so, we dont need to send CFUN=4 incase of ifx right
Feb 02 10:31:19 <holtmann> I don't know. I asked for clarification on the documentation. I never got enough details.
Feb 02 10:31:32 <Jeevaka> ok
Feb 02 10:32:09 <holtmann> Maybe you can check what the actual different CFUN=0 vs CFUN=4 for IFX is. I got lost in what they are doing with CFUN.
Feb 02 10:33:36 <holtmann> Jeevaka: Remember that I wrote the initial IFX MAL support without having any hardware to test it.
Feb 02 10:33:52 <holtmann> Maybe this is just a simple mistake on my side.
Feb 02 10:34:50 <Jeevaka> holtmann: I didnt see any problem till now but want to know is there anything that I'm not aware of
Feb 02 10:40:35 <holtmann> You guess is as good as mine here.
Feb 02 11:35:07 <Jeevaka> holtmann: ping
Feb 02 12:37:41 <pessi> jeevaka: cfun=1 would work with ifx, as it requires special command to actually do registering
Feb 02 12:38:17 <pessi> i think i did the cfun=4 bit but did not know about the extra step needed for actual online
Feb 02 12:39:21 <Jeevaka> pessi: cfun=1 works but wanted to know the reason behind one extra step(cfun=4) before actual online
Feb 02 15:17:55 <Gzajac> denkenz: ping
Feb 02 16:17:31 <denkenz> Gzajac: pong
Feb 02 16:58:01 <Jeevaka> holtmann: ping
Feb 02 16:58:30 <holtmann> Jeevaka: pong
Feb 02 16:58:56 <holtmann> Jeevaka: I think I talked about something different today in the morning than you were.
Feb 02 17:00:41 <Jeevaka> but why do we need to bring it in offline state
Feb 02 17:01:17 <denkenz> by default oFono assumes that .enable initializes the sim, but leaves rx/tx off
Feb 02 17:01:18 <holtmann> We need to bring it on.
Feb 02 17:01:34 <holtmann> Otherwise it is CFUN=0 and thus off. So SIM is not initilized.
Feb 02 17:01:35 <denkenz> Most modems fuck this up by using cfun=1 to start the init procedure
Feb 02 17:01:48 <denkenz> hence the hack to use cfun=1, followed by cfun=4
Feb 02 17:02:57 <holtmann> IFX does this fine, you can go straight to CFUN=4.
Feb 02 17:03:18 <holtmann> Jeevaka: I really thought that this was about ifx_disable and using CFUN=4 there instead of CFUN=0.
Feb 02 17:03:23 <Jeevaka> ok
Feb 02 17:04:05 <Jeevaka> i tested my change around 20times with the ifx. i didnt face any issue
Feb 02 17:04:32 <Jeevaka> now, i can see your point
Feb 02 17:08:30 <holtmann> Leave it as it is. The CFUN=4 is right thing here.
Feb 02 17:23:15 <Jeevaka> holtmann: so, your point is that if we dont issue CFUN=4, sim wont be initialized
Feb 02 17:26:15 <holtmann> That is how I understood it.
Feb 02 17:26:34 <holtmann> Device should be CFUN=0 state after MUX setup.
Feb 02 17:26:55 <holtmann> CFUN=4 is then init and CFUN=1 init+online.
Feb 02 17:27:17 <holtmann> And it is a good idea to send CFUN=4 to ensure we are in offline mode.
Feb 02 17:27:28 <Jeevaka> as per ifx spec CFUN=0, minimum functinality
Feb 02 17:28:16 <Jeevaka> minimum functionality ???
Feb 02 17:28:41 <holtmann> Exactly. That part of the documentation needs highly improvement ;)
Feb 02 18:25:27 <padovan> denkenz: and what about my DUN server patches?
Feb 02 21:47:55 <Jeevaka> denkenz: ping
Feb 02 22:21:49 <denkenz> Jeevaka: pong
Feb 02 22:22:56 <Jeevaka> I noticied the ISIM task in TODO list
Feb 02 22:23:14 <Jeevaka> wanted to discuss on that
Feb 02 22:24:13 <denkenz> I'm the wrong person to ask about ISIM
Feb 02 22:24:17 <denkenz> Never played with one
Feb 02 22:24:22 <Jeevaka> ok
Feb 02 22:24:28 <Jeevaka> neither I
Feb 02 22:27:55 <Jeevaka> is there plan to add this also to the existing sim atom or provide a new atom for isim alone
Feb 02 22:28:58 <Jeevaka> based on the active application, we might need to consider reading isim specific files as well
Feb 02 22:29:21 <denkenz> I have no idea
Feb 02 22:30:54 <Jeevaka> i'll discuss with pessi and balrog-k1n
Feb 03 00:51:26 <sabotage> denkenz: ping
**** ENDING LOGGING AT Thu Feb 03 02:59:57 2011