Crash of UmTRX transceiver with dual TRX

Thomas Tsou tom at
Mon Jul 8 20:35:09 UTC 2013

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Andreas Eversberg <andreas at> wrote:
> oops, i did a mistake. even single trx support never supported poweroff. the
> reason why it worked for me is that i send "SETTSC" and "SETBSIC" commands
> to the transceiver. (calypso-bts requires "SETBSIC" because it generates SCH
> itself). because one of these commands will fail, osmo-bts ignores the
> response, so it does for "SETTSC".
> i think it is not a clean solution to send both commands and ignore the
> result. the "POWEROFF" should shutdown transmitter, stop receiving and allow
> "SETTSC" (even with different value) again.

Agreed. The larger issue isn't that the POWEROFF command isn't
implemented, it's that the transceiver was written without explicit
state management. Thread deallocation is the most annoying issue. We
can't shutdown threads right now because we don't know what threads
are running.

IMO, the preferred solution is to replace thread abstraction or make
the signals work. I think the latter was the original intention with
shutdown triggering on pthread_cancel(), but for whatever reason that
was never implemented.


More information about the UmTRX mailing list