15 Jun
2015
15 Jun
'15
9:01 p.m.
On Jun 2, 2015 8:40 AM, "Holger Freyther" <holger(a)freyther.de> wrote:
Yes. I guess it's up to the BTS model to check that.
change
> On 30 May 2015, at 20:59, Alexander Chemeris <
alexander.chemeris(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Alexander,
> * Apply change even if the supplied value is higher than the 24dB
maximum
suggested
by the standard, just warn about this.
UmSITE and probably other SDR based BTS support much wider power
regulation range.
this certainly makes sense. We need to check in osmo-bts that “24 dB” in
reduction does not exceed the maximum. Changes:
* Apply change to the BTS over OML immediately.
that is nice but there is a bigger picture. Do we really want/can/need all VTY. We are certainly lacking in terms of live
modification
capabilities but
this path to add them might not be the right one. You
might want to change
two parameters at once (switch the ARFCN and then use a higher output?).
In the long-run I think we need to separate the running config from the
one
that can be configured and with an “apply” you can
then move the config
around.
I am hesitant to merge a hunk like this right now
wihtout having a
goal/target
to improve the entire situation.
See my reply in the other email. We can certainly discuss future, but I
don't think it should hold a patch improving the current situation.
> * Apply change even if the supplied value is
odd, just warn that it is
rounded.
> Previously the value was not set at all, which
may have lead to a
situation when
> a user thinks the BTS operating at low power,
while it is running
full power.
No we should not round. We could change the VTY command to list 0|2|4..
22|24|26..
Good idea.
--
Regards,
Alexander Chemeris
CEO Fairwaves, Inc.
https://fairwaves.co