* Pavel Machek <pavel@???> [200514 15:17]:
> Hi!
>
> > * Tony Lindgren <tony@???> [200509 20:42]:
> > > Below are the initial v5.7 kernel based branches at [0][1][2][3][4].
> > >
> > > We now use the generic serdev-ngsm driver with the standard /dev/gsmtty*
> > > devices spun up by n_gsm instead of the custom /dev/motmdm* devices like
> > > we did earlier. This means all the commands must prefix the Motorola
> > > custom packet ID to the commands like:
> > >
> > > printf "U1234AT+CFUN?\r" > /dev/gsmtty1
> >
> > I got the minimal ofono updates done for serdev-ngsm and pushed out the
> > changes into a new branc motmdm-serdev-ngsm on github at [5] below.
> >
> > I ended up adding few more gatchat patches. It's still unsure if we
> > end up using any of those, that depends on the outcome of Pavel's work.
> > Anyways, the current gatchat related commits are now:
>
> I believe I got the basics right. Separate motchat is the way to go.
>
> 1) protocol is packet-based, not character-based.
>
> 2) in AT you got
>
> > AT+TELL_ME_SOMETHING
> < IT_IS_42
> < OK
>
> while in motmdm it is:
>
> > U0005AT+TELL_ME
> < U0005OK:IT_IS_42
>
> I believe that's why commands/responses are getting delayed in Tony's
> case... AFAICT lot of complexity in atchat is collecting the multiple
> lines, including handling stuff like
>
> IT_IS="Arbitrary
> text including
> OK
> here"
> OK
>
> We don't need or want any of that...

Hmm just wondering about copying several thousand lines of gatchat
code..

What's keeping us from just implementing motmdm_receive() and
motmdm_send_command() directly in motorolamodem.c like we're doing in
the GNSS kernel driver for example?

I guess my point is: Do we really want to keep any of this AT stuff
around at all?

Regards,

Tony