[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171124120224.GB18428@graute-opti>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2017 13:02:24 +0100
From: Oliver Graute <oliver.graute@...il.com>
To: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: qmi_wwan: add support for Cinterion PLS8
On 23/11/17, Bjørn Mork wrote:
>
> This is also consistent with the Windows drivers. And being a proper
> CDC ECM class function, it should Just Work with the cdc_ether driver.
> Except for the "RmNet" part, which I guess is the reason you want to
> add this device to qmi_wwan. Which is fine, *if* we can be reasonably
> certain that it does support QMI. The description string is a strong
> indication, but it would be even better to know this was tested.
>
> But adding this to qmi_wwan is not enough. You also need to add a
> blacklist entry to cdc_ether. Both should use a device+class match,
> similar to the Novatel entries. This will make the interface numbering
> irrelevant, and will allow a single entry to match both QMI/rmnet
> functions.
ok I tried it this way:
+++ b/drivers/net/usb/cdc_ether.c
@@ -562,6 +562,7 @@ static void usbnet_cdc_zte_status(struct usbnet *dev, struct urb *urb)
#define MICROSOFT_VENDOR_ID 0x045e
#define UBLOX_VENDOR_ID 0x1546
#define TPLINK_VENDOR_ID 0x2357
+#define CINTERION_VENDOR_ID 0x1e2d
static const struct usb_device_id products[] = {
/* BLACKLIST !!
@@ -821,6 +822,13 @@ static void usbnet_cdc_zte_status(struct usbnet *dev, struct urb *urb)
.driver_info = 0,
},
+/* Cinterion PLS8 - handled by qmi_wwan */
+{
+ USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(CINTERION_VENDOR_ID, 0x0061, USB_CLASS_COMM,
+ USB_CDC_SUBCLASS_ETHERNET, USB_CDC_PROTO_NONE),
+ .driver_info = 0,
+},
+
/* WHITELIST!!!
*
* CDC Ether uses two interfaces, not necessarily consecutive.
diff --git a/drivers/net/usb/qmi_wwan.c b/drivers/net/usb/qmi_wwan.c
index 720a3a2..93e102e 100644
--- a/drivers/net/usb/qmi_wwan.c
+++ b/drivers/net/usb/qmi_wwan.c
@@ -1221,6 +1221,7 @@ static int qmi_wwan_resume(struct usb_interface *intf)
{QMI_FIXED_INTF(0x0b3c, 0xc00a, 6)}, /* Olivetti Olicard 160 */
{QMI_FIXED_INTF(0x0b3c, 0xc00b, 4)}, /* Olivetti Olicard 500 */
{QMI_FIXED_INTF(0x1e2d, 0x0060, 4)}, /* Cinterion PLxx */
+ {QMI_FIXED_INTF(0x1e2d, 0x0061, 3)}, /* Cinterion PLS8 LTE */
{QMI_FIXED_INTF(0x1e2d, 0x0053, 4)}, /* Cinterion PHxx,PXxx */
{QMI_FIXED_INTF(0x1e2d, 0x0082, 4)}, /* Cinterion PHxx,PXxx (2 RmNet) */
{QMI_FIXED_INTF(0x1e2d, 0x0082, 5)}, /* Cinterion PHxx,PXxx (2 RmNet) */
but now I'am missing an ttyACM4 interface and the edc_ether registering
is not working anymore.
[ 124.310611] usb 2-1: new high-speed USB device number 2 using ci_hdrc
[ 124.457029] usb 2-1: New USB device found, idVendor=1e2d, idProduct=0061
[ 124.463938] usb 2-1: New USB device strings: Mfr=1, Product=2, SerialNumber=0
[ 124.471307] usb 2-1: Product: LTE Modem
[ 124.475278] usb 2-1: Manufacturer: Cinterion
[ 124.536219] cdc_acm 2-1:1.0: ttyACM0: USB ACM device
[ 124.563155] cdc_acm 2-1:1.2: ttyACM1: USB ACM device
[ 124.589625] cdc_acm 2-1:1.4: ttyACM2: USB ACM device
[ 124.613517] cdc_acm 2-1:1.6: ttyACM3: USB ACM device
in my working old setup with kernel 3.9.11 it looks like this:
[ 129.710622] usb 2-1: new high-speed USB device number 2 using ci_hdrc
[ 129.873985] usb 2-1: New USB device found, idVendor=1e2d, idProduct=0061
[ 129.888573] usb 2-1: New USB device strings: Mfr=1, Product=2, SerialNumber=0
[ 129.902973] usb 2-1: Product: LTE Modem
[ 129.906927] usb 2-1: Manufacturer: Cinterion
[ 129.928389] cdc_acm 2-1:1.0: ttyACM0: USB ACM device
[ 129.959324] cdc_acm 2-1:1.2: ttyACM1: USB ACM device
[ 129.992714] cdc_acm 2-1:1.4: ttyACM2: USB ACM device
[ 130.019416] cdc_acm 2-1:1.6: ttyACM3: USB ACM device
[ 130.045248] cdc_acm 2-1:1.8: This device cannot do calls on its own. It is not a modem.
[ 130.073929] cdc_acm 2-1:1.8: ttyACM4: USB ACM device
[ 130.100982] cdc_ether 2-1:1.10 usb0: register 'cdc_ether' at usb-ci_hdrc.1-1, CDC Ethernet Device, de:ad:be:ef:00:00
[ 130.136438] cdc_ether 2-1:1.12 usb1: register 'cdc_ether' at usb-ci_hdrc.1-1, CDC Ethernet Device, de:ad:be:ef:00:01
Any clue what I'am doing wrong here?
Best regards,
Oliver
Powered by blists - more mailing lists