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?
Obvious bits I would consider are:
- is this firmware compiled with TX support?
- does this firmware contain a SIM reader driver?
- does this firmware support BURST_IND?
Maybe we could also include a static header containing a compile
timestamp or the git date/revision that the firmware was built, as
well as a name of the board.
Yes, all good stuff.
//Peter