sim reader code / master branch / ...
laforge at gnumonks.org
Wed Jan 19 09:52:58 UTC 2011
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:17:13AM +0100, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Harald Welte wrote:
> > In order to avoid the most common problems, I propose exporting
> > something like a feature bitmask on the L1CTL, i.e.
> > * L1CTL user code (layer23) can send a L1CTL_GET_FEAT_REQ request
> > * laye1 in the phone sends a L1CTL_GET_FEAT_RESP with all the bits
> > set to 1 for the features it supports
> > * L1CTL user code (layer23) can then check if all the features it needs are
> > supported by the L1. IF not, it can simply abort or print a warning to the
> > user.
> Any point in using names for features, rather than bits?
well, simply define an enum for the bits in a common header file. I really
don't want to pass around strings on the L1CTL interface, it just feels wrong ;)
- Harald Welte <laforge at gnumonks.org> http://laforge.gnumonks.org/
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
(ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)
More information about the baseband-devel