Attention is currently required from: neels, fixeria, dexter.
5 comments:
File include/osmocom/pcu/pcuif_proto.h:
Patch Set #19, Line 279: uint8_t pgroup;
> And AFAIR, yes, it can be bigger than 255. […]
What do we need to calculate the paging group? Some specific SI? we are already passing some SIs to the PCU, and we may have the relevant information in osmo-pcu already.
File include/osmocom/pcu/pcuif_proto.h:
Patch Set #18, Line 43: PCU_IF_SAPI_PCH_DT
The patch for `osmo-bts.git` is already in Gerrit (currently WIP to avoid merging before this one). […]
I do see a real need: This allows running a new osmo-pcu with older osmo-bts.
So I'm all in favour for the approach submitted by dexter here.
File include/osmocom/pcu/pcuif_proto.h:
Patch Set #17, Line 280: uint8_t pgroup[3];
As per 3GPP TS 45.002 section 6.5.2 it's defined as follows: […]
So let's provide the SI (if we don't do that already) to osmo-pcu so it can calculate the paging group?
Either that or better pass the entire IMSI and let osmo-bts figure out the whole pgroup calculation.
File src/bts.cpp:
Patch Set #17, Line 1134: pcu_l1if_tx_pch(bts, immediate_assignment, plen, ms_paging_group(tbf_ms(tbf)));
If we go this way (backwards compatibility), we would have to keep both `PCU_IF_MSG_DATA_CNF` and `P […]
I think you are not thinking about users with deployments out there. If it's easy to add backward compatibility in osmo-pcu (which seems to be the case), why not doing it?
This also allows testing when comparing for regressions with older versions of osmo-bts.
File src/pcu_l1_if.cpp:
Patch Set #19, Line 771: } else {
He's adding `info_ind->version != 0x0a` there, so it can be reached.
According to above block (like 752), only PCU_IF_VERSION and 0x0a are allows to reach here.
PCU_IF_VERSION is checked in line 766.
0x0a is checked in line 768.
So this "else" branch can never be entered!
To view, visit change 31145. To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit settings.