On Jun 2, 2015 8:40 AM, "Holger Freyther" <holger@freyther.de> wrote:
>
>
> > On 30 May 2015, at 20:59, Alexander Chemeris <alexander.chemeris@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.

Yes. I guess it's up to the BTS model to check that.

> > Changes:
>
> >  * Apply change to the BTS over OML immediately.
>
> that is nice but there is a bigger picture. Do we really want/can/need change
> 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