Am Freitag, 24. Juli 2009 14:14:17 schrieb Rémi Denis-Courmont: > On Friday 24 July 2009 15:01:19 ext Oliver Neukum wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, 22. Juli 2009 11:15:34 schrieb Marcel Holtmann: > > > > > The AT stuff is really problematic. Look at the hoops ISDN and > > > > > software modem drivers go through to emulate AT commands. I know > > > > > even of a CDC-ACM modem which can't deal with AT commands inline > > > > > (that's within spec). It seems to me we should have a modem API in > > > > > kernel. > > > > > > > > For devices which don't deal in AT commands probably but for devices > > > > whose firmware provides an AT command interface over serial I would > > > > disagree. > > > > > > I fully agree here. Even if you think you get AT commands under > > > control, you really won't in the end. That standard is so wildly > > > mis-interpreted that it is not even funny anymore. > > > > For these devices we could at least separate the data channel from the > > control channel. > > "These" as in AT devices? You want a line discipline to multiplex AT > commands inspite of PPP? I wonder if that'd work. No, I was thinking of having two full devices, a data channel and a control channel for devices that really talk AT commands natively. Regards Oliver -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
