This is merely a historical archive of years 2008-2021, before the migration to mailman3.
A maintained and still updated list archive can be found at https://lists.osmocom.org/hyperkitty/list/osmocom-net-gprs@lists.osmocom.org/.
Jacob jacob01 at gmx.netHi Neels, AFAICS you are mixing up "puncturing scheme" and "Coding and Puncturing Scheme", there are still only three puncturing schemes, where up to 3 of them may be used with a certain MCS. The P scheme has to be changed (incremented IIRC) after each use. Nevertheless choosing a safe value for INVALID is probably not bad if there might be another P in some future spec. But I'd be careful with negative values in enums. (I didn't check that against the current version of the code, so I might be completely out of sync). HTH Jacob On 12/15/2016 12:45 PM, Neels Hofmeyr wrote: > Today I looked at enum egprs_puncturing_values by coincidence: > > /* > * Valid puncturing scheme values > * TS 44.060 10.4.8a.3.1, 10.4.8a.2.1, 10.4.8a.1.1 > */ > enum egprs_puncturing_values { > EGPRS_PS_1, > EGPRS_PS_2, > EGPRS_PS_3, > EGPRS_PS_INVALID, > }; > ... > > I would prefer EGPRS_PS_INVALID=-1 (i.e. outside the spec's value range) and > the other enum values named appropriately, like EGPRS_MSC4_P1, so that our enum > actually reflects the spec as advertised. Is there something I'm missing? > > These enum values were added in: > commit 7a05b039c835868eff34308d861edfeb28d1763b > Author: Aravind Sirsikar <arvind.sirsikar at radisys.com> > Date: Wed Mar 23 18:29:45 2016 +0530 > > Thanks, > > ~N >