15 Dec
2016
15 Dec
'16
2:36 p.m.
Hi Neels,
AFAICS you are mixing up "puncturing scheme" and "Coding and Puncturing
Scheme", there are still only three puncturing schemes, where up to 3 of
them may be used with a certain MCS. The P scheme has to be changed
(incremented IIRC) after each use.
Nevertheless choosing a safe value for INVALID is probably not bad if
there might be another P in some future spec. But I'd be careful with
negative values in enums.
(I didn't check that against the current version of the code, so I might
be completely out of sync).
HTH Jacob
On 12/15/2016 12:45 PM, Neels Hofmeyr wrote:
Today I looked at enum egprs_puncturing_values by
coincidence:
/*
* Valid puncturing scheme values
* TS 44.060 10.4.8a.3.1, 10.4.8a.2.1, 10.4.8a.1.1
*/
enum egprs_puncturing_values {
EGPRS_PS_1,
EGPRS_PS_2,
EGPRS_PS_3,
EGPRS_PS_INVALID,
};
...
I would prefer EGPRS_PS_INVALID=-1 (i.e. outside the spec's value range) and
the other enum values named appropriately, like EGPRS_MSC4_P1, so that our enum
actually reflects the spec as advertised. Is there something I'm missing?
These enum values were added in:
commit 7a05b039c835868eff34308d861edfeb28d1763b
Author: Aravind Sirsikar <arvind.sirsikar(a)radisys.com>
Date: Wed Mar 23 18:29:45 2016 +0530
Thanks,
~N