Re: [ANNOUNCE] ModemManager (for GSM and CDMA)

["Pablo Martí" <pmarti warp es>]

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Tambet Ingo <tambet gmail com> wrote:
>
> I reordered the interfaces a bit:
>
>> org.freedesktop.ModemManager.Modem.Gsm.Card: SIM/Card related operations
>>  - DisableEcho() ->
>>  - EnableEcho() ->
>
> These do not do anything useful from the API user's perspective and
> shouldn't be included in the public API.

Agreed

>
>>  - Enable(b enable) ->  (This is the Enable method of ModemManager, I
>> think it goes here but I might be completely wrong here :)
>
> Yes. Enable() means initialize the card and check if any secrets are
> needed (PIN/PUK).

It seems that Enable will raise an exception indicating whats needed,
we'll need to agree on the exceptions name... :)

>
>>  - GetCharset -> s
>>  - GetCharsets() -> as
>>  - SetCharset(s charset) ->
>
> Do we need these? Do the modems support UTF8? If they do, let's just
> default to that. The reason I don't like there much is that they seem
> a bit too low level.

I agree that they dont need to be included in the public API as
they're not that useful for MM, but at the same time if we reach
consensus here, this API might be the de-facto standard for [W]CDMA on
Linux (and perhaps other nix*). And our Asian friends _do_ care about
unicode. This parameter affects responses of commands like (+COPS,
GetSMSC, SetSMSC, AddContact, FindContact, etc.) The idea is to be in
UCS2 as much as possible so everyone is happy, and using IRA,GSM as a
fallback.

>
>>  - GetIMEI() -> s
>>  - GetIMSI() -> s
>>  - GetManufacturer() -> s
>>  - GetModel() -> s
>>  - GetVersion() -> s  (Firmware version)
>
> All good ones.

>
>> org.freedesktop.ModemManager.Modem.Gsm.Network:
>>  - GetRegistrationStatus() -> (uu)    (AT+CREG?)
>>  - GetInfo() -> (su)  (AT+COPS?)
>>  - GetNames() -> a(ussuu)   (AT+COPS=?)
>>  - GetRoamingIDs() -> as    (AT+CPOL?)
>>  - GetSignalQuality() -> u
>>  - SetRegistrationNotification(b enable) ->
>>  - SetInfoFormat(u mode, u format) -> (i.e. AT+COPS=3,0)
>>  - RegisterWithNetID(s netid) ->
>>
>>  - CregReceived(u status) ->   (signal)
>>  - SignalQuality(u rssi) ->   (signal)
>
> I think these are too low level. I'd much prefer the current ones from
> ModemManager.

You mean:
 - Register("") -> Tries to register with your home network
 - Register("24301") -> Tries to register with the given MNC

I can agree in this two. "AT+COPS?" is a pretty useful command that
you've (inadvertently) banned here :), ditto with "At+COPS=?" and
"AT+CPOL?" when you have a buggy firmware/old SIM that does strange
things while roaming...

>
>> org.freedesktop.ModemManager.Modem.Gsm.PIN:
>>  - Change(s oldpin, s newpin) ->
>>  - Check() -> u  (Returns the SIM auth state, to check it against an enum)
>>  - Enable(s pin) ->
>>  - Disable(s pin) ->
>>  - Send(s pin) ->
>>  - SendPUK(s puk, s pin) ->
>
> Not sure about these. Currently, Check() is part of
> Gsm.Card.Enable(True). Enable(pin)/Disable(pin) could be one method
> with a boolean argument. What's the difference (code wise) between
> Send() and SendPUK()? So that would leave us with 3 methods:
> Enable(bool), Send(string), Change(string, string). If so, maybe they
> can be part of the Gsm.Card interface?

Enable(b) sounds good to me. The difference between Send and SendPUK
is that the former receives just one parameter (the pin), while the
later receives two, the puk and the new PIN to set in the card. One of
the advantages of having a separate interface is that CDMA devices
cant just skip the .PIN interface. Otherwise they'll support half of
.Card.
>
>
> For the following methods I don't have strong preferences because I've
> never used any of these features and thus don't have any hands on
> experience. I'd really appreciate if other interested parties
> (Telefonica?) could comment these.

Yeah! Roberto?

Best regards,

>
>> org.freedesktop.ModemManager.Modem.Gsm.Contacts: Contact related operations:
>>  - Add(s name, s number) -> u
>>  - Delete(u index) ->
>>  - Find(s pattern) -> a(uss)
>>  - Get(u index) -> (uss)
>>  - GetPhonebookSize() -> u    (Could be renamed to GetSize() ?)
>>  - List() -> a(uss)
>
> Looks good to me.
>
>> org.freedesktop.ModemManager.Modem.Gsm.SMS: SMS related operations:
>>  - Delete(u index) ->
>>  - Get(u index) -> (ussd)        (The last double is the time when it
>> was received)
>>  - GetFormat() -> u   (AT+CPBF?)
>>  - GetSMSC() -> s
>>  - List() -> a(ussd)
>>  - Save(s text, s number) -> u
>>  - Send -> u
>>  - SendFromStorage(u index)
>>  - SetFormat(u format) ->
>>  - SetIndication(u mode, u mt, u bm, u ds, u bfr) ->   (AT+CNMI=mode,mt,..)
>>  - SetSMSC(s smsc) ->
>>
>>  - SMSReceived(u index, s where)    (signal)
>>
>> This is just food for thought, what think about such an API the
>> different parties involved?
>> I've tried to clarify in parentheses all the methods that might be
>> misleading or might be controversial, with either its purpose or the
>> correspondent AT command. I think that standard interfaces such as
>> {SMS, Contacts}.{Delete, List, Get} should definitely go in. Other
>> methods (specially its naming) are somewhat more controversial and
>> I'll be happy to discuss 'em.
>>
>> I've attached this interfaces to the Gsm (WCDMA) part, we still need
>> to decide what to do with CDMA... Dan? :)
>
> Tambet
>



-- 
Pablo Martí
http://www.linkedin.com/in/pmarti || http://www.warp.es
python -c "print '706d6172746940776172702e6573'.decode('hex')"