Attention is currently required from: dexter. fixeria has posted comments on this change. ( https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-bts/+/30523 )

Change subject: l1sap: Accept RFC5993 and TS 101.318 HR GSM payload ......................................................................

Patch Set 1:

(4 comments)

File include/osmo-bts/bts.h:

https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-bts/+/30523/comment/ec5073fd_a8923b8a PS1, Line 68: prefers "Prefers" implies that it supports both but simply has a preference. I guess "supports" is a better fit here?

https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-bts/+/30523/comment/188a59e1_da4e9035 PS1, Line 72: BTS_INTERNAL_FLAG_SPEECH_H_V1_RFC5993 I suggest to use slightly different, consistent naming here:

* BTS_INTERNAL_FLAG_HR_FMT_ETSI_TS101318 * BTS_INTERNAL_FLAG_HR_FMT_RFC5993

File src/common/l1sap.c:

https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-bts/+/30523/comment/d0238346_72356564 PS1, Line 1920: if (bts_internal_flag_get(lchan->ts->trx->bts, BTS_INTERNAL_FLAG_SPEECH_H_V1_RFC5993) I believe it should be clarified in a comment that the only difference between the two formats is basically presence of a header in front of the actual speech payload. The bit ordering is the same for both.

https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-bts/+/30523/comment/6f87d51b_16456128 PS1, Line 1925: memcpy(msgb_put(msg, 1), "\x00", 1); msgb_put_u8(msg, 0x00)