Re: ZTE modem problems and workrounds
- From: Dan Williams <dcbw redhat com>
- To: Rick Jones <rick activeservice co uk>
- Cc: networkmanager-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: ZTE modem problems and workrounds
- Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 10:16:48 -0400
On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 08:56 -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 19:43 +0100, Rick Jones wrote:
> > --On Wednesday, July 01, 2009 14:36:24 -0400 Dan Williams
> > <dcbw redhat com> wrote:
> > > > Functionality is definitely tied to the IF number. IF0 is
> > effectively
> > > > dead (supposedly NMEA, but I don't know what it's meant to
> > support).
> > > > IF1 & IF3 both behave like a modem (usually), and seem very
> > closely
> > > > tied together. E.g. if you use ATE0 to turn off echo on one port,
> > it
> > > > is turned off on both. Very occasionally, IF1 will not respond to
> > AT
> > > > commands, but the modem still works on the correct IF3 port, and
> > IF1
> > > > still spits out messages.
> > >
> > > How often does IF1 spit out messages? What do they look like?
> > The messages all come out the same on both IF! & IF3, regardless of
> > whether IF1 decides to accept commands.
> > To start with there is always +ZUSIMR:2 every 2 secs., this can be
> > stopped by giving any version of AT+CPMS on either port (stops the
> > messages on both ports). The only other UMs I see are +ZDONR and
> > +ZPASR.
> Ugh. That sucks. That means hardcoding stuff on a per-modem basis,
> potentially using AT+CGMM responses instead of USB IDs, because some
> vendors (Huawei) use the same USB ID for vastly different devices to
> work around stupid Windows bugs.
I've found some ZTE windows inf drivers that appear to confirm that
we'll need to hardcode ports. Teh suck.
] [Thread Prev