Re: SMS sending error with Telit module

[Enrico Murador - Research & Development - CET <rd cet-electronics com>]

Ok. Problem is that I think I can't get more information regarding 
Windows drivers (even if I manage to get the sources, I suppose I can't 
freely publish the content). Now I'm trying to look for anything useful 
in the list of available AT commands.
Probably I'll have to stick with info that I already have... that should 
not be a problem, if I could "patch" (maybe writing udev rules by 
myself?) MM to work with my model only.
I agree that a more complete solution is the way to go, but now I have a 
system that is essentially not working, so one "half" solution would be 
better than nothing.

So, how can I do? Is there a way for me to "customize" MM port detection 
for my UC864E module?
Last resort would be to "turn off" MM and manually handle the module 
(and the related data connection), but I must also manage a VPN on that 
connection, and I think NetworkManager doesn't consider data connections 
that are not managed by itself, so in the case I'll also have to 
manually handle the VPN connection...

Thank you

On 16/04/2013 19:10, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-04-16 at 18:23 +0200, Enrico Murador - Research &
> Development - CET wrote:
> > On 16/04/2013 17:32, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > What are the USB IDs again?
> > Do you mean VID and PID? If so:
> >
> > #define TELIT_VENDOR_ID                         0x1bc7
> > #define TELIT_PRODUCT_UC864E                    0x1003
> > #define TELIT_PRODUCT_UC864G                    0x1004
> > #define TELIT_PRODUCT_CC864_DUAL                0x1005
> > #define TELIT_PRODUCT_CC864_SINGLE              0x1006
> > #define TELIT_PRODUCT_DE910_DUAL                0x1010
> > #define TELIT_PRODUCT_LE920                     0x1200
> Based on the PDF, we'll need a couple of classes of rules because these
> devices have different USB layouts.  For example, the 910 and 920 have
> different layouts, and the auxiliary port number is different between
> the 864E and 864G.  Even the CC864-SINGLE is different than the
> CC864-DUAL.  But this is easy to handle with udev rules.
>
> Dan