On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:18 AM, Dan Williams<dcbw redhat com> wrote:
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 12:54 -0400, Ryan Novosielski wrote:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Brian Morrison wrote: > Saw this on the Planet Fedora RSS feed today: > > http://fetzig.org/2009/07/04/tethering-in-fedora-using-your-mobile-phone-with-networkmanager-to-surf-the-web/ > > Does this look the sort of thing where a more sane approach could be > added to NM or udev to cope with a wider range of phones without > needing to create user rules? I notice this solution mentions GSM. Is there any reason this should not work for a CDMA phone?As long as the phone responds to AT+GCAP with "IS-707" the probe will tag the phone as a CDMA device and you should be able to use it with a CDMA connection like any normal data card or USB-attached CDMA phone. NM shouldn't be confused by the mis-tagged HAL entry in the linked dialup-bluetooth.py because it prefers the probed capabilities over static ones in HAL.
I have an emobile (Japanese provider) CDMA device that responds with +GCAP: +CGSM,+DS,+ES but not IS-707 and so only gets resolved as GSM by NM, but in reality it's a CDMA-only device and works fine when just dialed with pppd. What should I do in this situation? Also an earlier model from the same provider that was also CDMA failed to respond at all to the AT+GCAP (and subsequent) commands from nm-modem-probe. Is the device not following the spec or is NM too strict?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature