Attention is currently required from: neels, dexter.

View Change

9 comments:

• File src/ericsson-rbs/er_ccu_descr.h:

  • Patch Set #16, Line 27:

    uint32_t pseq_ccu;
    	uint32_t pseq_pcu;
    	uint32_t last_afn_ul;
    	uint32_t last_afn_dl;
    	bool ccu_synced;
    	enum time_adj_val tav;
    	bool ul_frame_err;
    

    you could potentally group those things into sub-structs? If all of this is sync state, then it might be a good idea. Also, we have a trau_sync_fi above (but that's in the i460 subslot group? so maybe clarify which kind of sync is meant where.

    Also, I think it would be nice to have comments for each member of the struct (could be on the same line). some are self-explanatory (trx_no, ts_, pdch_connected, ccu_synced, ccu_connected). Some others don't have any meaning to me, like what is "pseq" or "afn".

• File src/ericsson-rbs/er_ccu_if.c:

  • Patch Set #16, Line 38: LOGP(DE1, level, "%s: E1-l

    this probably also should use LOGPITS, see comment below?

  • Patch Set #16, Line 54: static void *tall_ctx = NULL;

    might make sens to give this a less generic name. like ccu_tall_ctx?

  • Patch Set #16, Line 100: static void

    "e1_send" is very generic. I'd try to be more specific. It is sending one frame/chunk for one timeslot. So both of that could be part of the function to make it clear to the reader what it does. e1_ts_send_one_{frame,chunk} ?

  • Patch Set #16, Line 121: LOGP(DE1, LOGL_DEBUG, "E1-TX: (line=%u,t

    we do have a LOGPITS() macro for logging the e1inp_line + timeslot in a standardized manner. Please use in all locations where an e1inp_ts is available.

    In general, every time you end up writing more than two log lines that print some context like "(line=%u,ts=%u)" it is a very strong indication that you're not using an existing macro for logging context information, or that you should write a new one if it doesn't exist yet.

  • Patch Set #16, Line 156: e1inp_rx_ts

    might be worth mentioning that e1inp_rx_ts is the caller of this call-back. like "our caller e1inp_rx_ts() ..."

  • Patch Set #16, Line 233: ccu_descr->trau_sync_fi = osmo_trau_sync_alloc(NULL, "trau-sync", sync_frame_out_cb, sync_pattern, ccu_descr);

    do we really have no better talloc-parent? Attaching things to the NULL Context is a last resort.

  • Patch Set #16, Line 285: e1inp_ts_config_raw

    why are we not using e1inp_ts_config_i460() here? It seems we're using I.460 but not calling the related ts_config function.

  • Patch Set #16, Line 367: return

    don't we need to close the e1_timeslot in the error path, if add_i468_subslot fails?

To view, visit change 31176. To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit settings.