19 Jan
2011
19 Jan
'11
10:52 a.m.
Hi Peter,
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:17:13AM +0100, Peter Stuge wrote:
Harald Welte wrote:
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(a)gnumonks.org> http://laforge.gnumonks.org/
============================================================================
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
(ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)
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?