the layer1 FN count - baseband-devel - lists.osmocom.org

List overview All Threads
Download

the layer1 FN count

[PATCH] firmware/rssi: attempt to...

replacing sercomm tranfer with...

bob wisebob

9 Jul 2012 9 Jul '12

3 a.m.

Hi, List: I am puzzled about the variation of gsmtime when the channel iump to sdcch or tch, how does the gsmtime change? I am decode the tch in the burst_id, but I think I can`t capture the TCH frame correctly?anyone who is familiar with it can help me?

Attachments:

attachment.html (text/html — 273 bytes)

Reply

Show replies by date

bob

9 Jul 9 Jul

8:28 a.m.

the flow is the TCH steal bit in a test network;in the burst_id branch, I do as following: osmo_pbit2ubit_ext(steal_bit, 0 , bi->bits, 114 , 2 , 0); printf("steal_bit %x , %x\n",steal_bit[0],steal_bit[1]); is that right?the result is below,: SACCH fn = 452204 fn_report = 90 steal_bit 1 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 1 , 1 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 1 steal_bit 1 , 1 steal_bit 1 , 0 steal_bit 1 , 1 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 1 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 1 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 1 , 0 steal_bit 1 , 1 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 1 , 1 steal_bit 1 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 1 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 SACCH fn = 452230 fn_report = 12 steal_bit 0 , 1 steal_bit 1 , 1 steal_bit 0 , 1 steal_bit 1 , 1 steal_bit 0 , 1 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 1 , 1 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 1 steal_bit 0 , 1 steal_bit 0 , 1 steal_bit 1 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 1 steal_bit 1 , 1 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 1 steal_bit 1 , 0 steal_bit 1 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 SACCH fn = 452256 fn_report = 38 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 1 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 1 , 0 steal_bit 1 , 1 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 1 , 1 steal_bit 1 , 0 steal_bit 1 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 1 steal_bit 1 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 1 steal_bit 1 , 1 steal_bit 1 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 1 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 1 steal_bit 1 , 0 SACCH fn = 452282 fn_report = 64 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 1 , 1 steal_bit 1 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 1 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 1 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 1 steal_bit 1 , 1 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 1 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 1 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 1 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 1 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 1 SACCH fn = 452308 fn_report = 90 steal_bit 0 , 1 steal_bit 1 , 1 steal_bit 1 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 1 steal_bit 1 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 1 steal_bit 1 , 1 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 1 , 1 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 1 , 0 steal_bit 1 , 1 steal_bit 0 , 1 steal_bit 1 , 1 steal_bit 1 , 0 steal_bit 1 , 1 steal_bit 1 , 1 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 1 steal_bit 0 , 0 SACCH fn = 452334 fn_report = 12 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 1 , 1 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 1 steal_bit 1 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 1 steal_bit 0 , 1 steal_bit 0 , 1 steal_bit 1 , 1 steal_bit 0 , 1 steal_bit 1 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 1 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 1 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 SACCH fn = 452360 fn_report = 38 steal_bit 0 , 1 steal_bit 1 , 1 steal_bit 1 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 1 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 1 steal_bit 1 , 1 steal_bit 1 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 1 steal_bit 1 , 1 steal_bit 1 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 1 , 1 steal_bit 0 , 1 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 1 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 1 , 1 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 1 , 0 SACCH fn = 452386 fn_report = 64 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 but I think it is not correct,because A FACCH/F frame of 456 coded bits is mapped on 8 consecutive bursts as specified for the TCH/FS, the even numbered bits in the first 4 bursts and the odd numbered bits of the last 4 bursts are stolen. so I think what is right is : steal_bit 1, 0 steal_bit 1 , 0 steal_bit 1 , 0 steal_bit 1 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 1 steal_bit 0 , 1 steal_bit 0 , 1 steal_bit 0 , 1 steal_bit 1 , 0 steal_bit 1 , 0 steal_bit 1 , 0 steal_bit 1 , 0 I am puzzled, what is the right answer? -- View this message in context: http://baseband-devel.722152.n3.nabble.com/the-layer1-FN-count-tp4025120p40… Sent from the baseband-devel mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Reply

Sylvain Munaut

8:59 a.m.

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 10:28 AM, bob <avwiseav(a)gmail.com> wrote:

the flow is the TCH steal bit in a test network;in the burst_id branch, I do as following: osmo_pbit2ubit_ext(steal_bit, 0 , bi->bits, 114 , 2 , 0); printf("steal_bit %x , %x\n",steal_bit[0],steal_bit[1]); is that right?the result is below,:

Yup should work, I use : hl = bi->bits[14] & 0x10; hu = bi->bits[14] & 0x20; but it should lead to the same result.

steal_bit 1 , 0 steal_bit 0 , 0 ....

This just look like noise. As you say you should have runs of 4. You must have a problem somewhere ... Cheers, Sylvain

Reply

4796

days inactive

4796

days old

baseband-devel@lists.osmocom.org

Manage subscription

2 comments

3 participants

tags (0)

participants (3)

bob
bob wisebob
Sylvain Munaut