sim reader code / master branch / ...

Harald Welte laforge at
Wed Jan 19 09:52:58 UTC 2011

Hi Peter,

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> 
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
                                                  (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)

More information about the baseband-devel mailing list