Attention is currently required from: arehbein, neels, fixeria. pespin has posted comments on this change. ( https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-bsc/+/30602 )

Change subject: vty: Add check against sensible default value for Ny1 ......................................................................

Patch Set 18: Code-Review-1

(6 comments)

File src/osmo-bsc/bts.c:

https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-bsc/+/30602/comment/e26ee03a_3167abcc PS18, Line 535: if (!gsm_bts_check_ny1(bts, LOGL_ERROR)) return -EINVAL; put return always in a separate line.

https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-bsc/+/30602/comment/abc2e43e_a1f52a6c PS18, Line 1726: const struct gsm_lchan *gl = gsm_bts_get_cbch(bts); I'm still not understanding why are you taking a CBCH channel here, seems totally not related. Furthermore, it should be called "lchan".

https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-bsc/+/30602/comment/c2f726e4_bc292299 PS18, Line 1729: if (gl) { no need for {} here. Linter should already have warned about it.

https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-bsc/+/30602/comment/a447cd3e_4caa72a9 PS18, Line 1730: T3124 = (gl->type == GSM_LCHAN_SDCCH) ? GSM_T3124_SDCCH : GSM_T3124_OTHER_CH; this is always going to be false since gl is CBCH.

https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-bsc/+/30602/comment/5db249de_80f64f13 PS18, Line 1732: /* Take the higher lower bound to be safe */ you can then move the comment to the "else" line (1731)

File src/osmo-bsc/bts_ipaccess_nanobts_omlattr.c:

https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-bsc/+/30602/comment/0bafb1aa_88aeb5f2 PS18, Line 95: gsm_bts_check_ny1(bts, LOGL_NOTICE); I really see no reason for having different log levels.