8 Mar
2016
8 Mar
'16
2:15 p.m.
This patch is first of series of patches to support 11 bit RACH.
This includes interface structure changes between osmo-pcu and
osmo-bts to support 11 bit RACH.Processing of 11 bit RACH for
GPRS is added in bts.cpp.
Unit test for the same shall be sent as separate patch.
EGPRS PACKET CHANNEL REQUEST is not part of this patch.Note also
that this feature requires changes in osmo-bts and versioning needs
to be addressed further.
---
src/bts.cpp | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
src/bts.h | 9 ++++++++-
src/pcu_l1_if.cpp | 2 +-
src/pcuif_proto.h | 3 ++-
4 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/bts.cpp b/src/bts.cpp
index 715fb51..a999c48 100644
--- a/src/bts.cpp
+++ b/src/bts.cpp
@@ -459,7 +459,7 @@ int BTS::rcv_imm_ass_cnf(const uint8_t *data, uint32_t fn)
return 0;
}
-int BTS::rcv_rach(uint8_t ra, uint32_t Fn, int16_t qta)
+int BTS::rcv_rach(uint16_t ra, uint32_t Fn, int16_t qta, uint8_t rach_type)
{
struct gprs_rlcmac_ul_tbf *tbf = NULL;
uint8_t trx_no, ts_no = 0;
@@ -475,14 +475,32 @@ int BTS::rcv_rach(uint8_t ra, uint32_t Fn, int16_t qta)
LOGP(DRLCMAC, LOGL_DEBUG, "MS requests UL TBF on RACH, so we provide "
"one:\n");
- if ((ra & 0xf8) == 0x70) {
- LOGP(DRLCMAC, LOGL_DEBUG, "MS requests single block "
- "allocation\n");
- sb = 1;
- } else if (m_bts.force_two_phase) {
- LOGP(DRLCMAC, LOGL_DEBUG, "MS requests single phase access, "
- "but we force two phase access\n");
- sb = 1;
+
+ if (rach_type == GPRS_8_BIT_RACH ) {
+ if ((ra & 0xf8) == 0x70) {
+ LOGP(DRLCMAC, LOGL_DEBUG, "MS requests single block "
+ "allocation\n");
+ sb = 1;
+ } else if (m_bts.force_two_phase) {
+ LOGP(DRLCMAC, LOGL_DEBUG, "MS requests single phase access, "
+ "but we force two phase access\n");
+ sb = 1;
+ }
+
+ } else if(rach_type == GPRS_11_BIT_RACH ) {
+ if((ra & RACH_CAUSE_SINGLE_BLOCK) == 0x0600) {
+ LOGP(DRLCMAC, LOGL_DEBUG, "11 bit RACH received.MS requests
single block "
+ "allocation\n");
+ sb = 1;
+
+ } else if (m_bts.force_two_phase) {
+ LOGP(DRLCMAC, LOGL_DEBUG, "11 bit RACHreceived.MS requests
single phase access, "
+ "but we force two phase access\n");
+ sb = 1;
+ }
+ } else if (rach_type == EGPRS_11_BIT_RACH) {
+ /*TODO*/
+
}
if (qta < 0)
qta = 0;
diff --git a/src/bts.h b/src/bts.h
index c975304..870e6f3 100644
--- a/src/bts.h
+++ b/src/bts.h
@@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ extern "C" {
#define LLC_CODEL_DISABLE 0
#define LLC_CODEL_USE_DEFAULT (-1)
+#define RACH_CAUSE_SINGLE_BLOCK ((~((~0) << 6)) << 5) /* Establish cause */
struct BTS;
struct GprsMs;
@@ -251,6 +252,12 @@ public:
TIMER_T3190_MSEC = 5000,
};
+ enum {
+ GPRS_8_BIT_RACH = 0,
+ GPRS_11_BIT_RACH = 1,
+ EGPRS_11_BIT_RACH = 2,
+ };
+
BTS();
~BTS();
@@ -275,7 +282,7 @@ public:
int tfi_find_free(enum gprs_rlcmac_tbf_direction dir, uint8_t *_trx, int8_t use_trx);
int rcv_imm_ass_cnf(const uint8_t *data, uint32_t fn);
- int rcv_rach(uint8_t ra, uint32_t Fn, int16_t qta);
+ int rcv_rach(uint16_t ra, uint32_t Fn, int16_t qta, uint8_t rach_type = 0);
void trigger_dl_ass(gprs_rlcmac_dl_tbf *tbf, gprs_rlcmac_tbf *old_tbf);
void snd_dl_ass(gprs_rlcmac_tbf *tbf, uint8_t poll, const char *imsi);
diff --git a/src/pcu_l1_if.cpp b/src/pcu_l1_if.cpp
index 19dda5c..d937d20 100644
--- a/src/pcu_l1_if.cpp
+++ b/src/pcu_l1_if.cpp
@@ -313,7 +313,7 @@ static int pcu_rx_rach_ind(struct gsm_pcu_if_rach_ind *rach_ind)
case PCU_IF_SAPI_RACH:
rc = BTS::main_bts()->rcv_rach(
rach_ind->ra, rach_ind->fn,
- rach_ind->qta);
+ rach_ind->qta,rach_ind->rach_type);
break;
default:
LOGP(DL1IF, LOGL_ERROR, "Received PCU rach request with "
diff --git a/src/pcuif_proto.h b/src/pcuif_proto.h
index 9d740ac..0844183 100644
--- a/src/pcuif_proto.h
+++ b/src/pcuif_proto.h
@@ -64,10 +64,11 @@ struct gsm_pcu_if_rts_req {
struct gsm_pcu_if_rach_ind {
uint8_t sapi;
- uint8_t ra;
+ uint16_t ra;
int16_t qta;
uint32_t fn;
uint16_t arfcn;
+ uint8_t rach_type;
} __attribute__ ((packed));
struct gsm_pcu_if_info_trx {
--
2.5.0
8 Mar
8 Mar
6:42 p.m.
On 08 Mar 2016, at 14:15, Bhargava Abhyankar
<Bhargava.Abhyankar(a)radisys.com> wrote:
Dear Bhargava,
This patch is first of series of patches to support 11 bit RACH.
This includes interface structure changes between osmo-pcu and
osmo-bts to support 11 bit RACH.Processing of 11 bit RACH for
GPRS is added in bts.cpp.
Unit test for the same shall be sent as separate patch.
EGPRS PACKET CHANNEL REQUEST is not part of this patch.Note also
that this feature requires changes in osmo-bts and versioning needs
to be addressed further.
could you start by sending a patch for both osmo-bts and osmo-pcu to modify the
pcuif_proto.h with the new protocol and the version number increase and osmo-bts to set it
as GPRS_8_BIT_RACH (to match current behavior if that makes sense)?
---
src/bts.cpp | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
src/bts.h | 9 ++++++++-
src/pcu_l1_if.cpp | 2 +-
src/pcuif_proto.h | 3 ++-
4 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/bts.cpp b/src/bts.cpp
index 715fb51..a999c48 100644
--- a/src/bts.cpp
+++ b/src/bts.cpp
@@ -459,7 +459,7 @@ int BTS::rcv_imm_ass_cnf(const uint8_t *data, uint32_t fn)
return 0;
}
-int BTS::rcv_rach(uint8_t ra, uint32_t Fn, int16_t qta)
+int BTS::rcv_rach(uint16_t ra, uint32_t Fn, int16_t qta, uint8_t rach_type)
{
+ } else if(rach_type == GPRS_11_BIT_RACH ) {
+ if((ra & RACH_CAUSE_SINGLE_BLOCK) == 0x0600) {
please have a look at the Linux Kernel CodingStyle guidelines about necessary spaces
between the if keyword and the opening parenthesis.
In terms of style, could you move the code that select the 'sb' into a separate
(static inline) helper function. Not that we do it right now but in general this allows us
to unit test such things more easily.
+ } else if (rach_type == EGPRS_11_BIT_RACH) {
+ /*TODO*/
+
Do you think a log message is necessary here? Also in terms of TODO, maybe describe what
someone in the future should put there?
kind regards
holger
10 Mar
10 Mar
3:12 p.m.
Hello holger,
Thanks for your comments.
We see that in latest osmo-bts, PCU_IF_VERSION is defined as 0x06 whereas in latest
osmo-pcu, it is defined as 0x05. Let us know the value to be taken for 11 bit RACH
support.
Regards
Bhargava Abhyankar
-----Original Message-----
From: Holger Freyther [mailto:holger@freyther.de]
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2016 11:12 PM
To: Bhargava Abhyankar <Bhargava.Abhyankar(a)radisys.com>
Cc: osmocom-net-gprs(a)lists.osmocom.org; Prasad Kaup <Prasad.Kaup(a)radisys.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Support of 11 bit RACH
On 08 Mar 2016, at 14:15, Bhargava Abhyankar
<Bhargava.Abhyankar(a)radisys.com> wrote:
Dear Bhargava,
This patch is first of series of patches to support 11 bit RACH.
This includes interface structure changes between osmo-pcu and
osmo-bts to support 11 bit RACH.Processing of 11 bit RACH for GPRS is
added in bts.cpp.
Unit test for the same shall be sent as separate patch.
EGPRS PACKET CHANNEL REQUEST is not part of this patch.Note also that
this feature requires changes in osmo-bts and versioning needs to be
addressed further.
could you start by sending a patch for both osmo-bts and osmo-pcu to modify the
pcuif_proto.h with the new protocol and the version number increase and osmo-bts to set it
as GPRS_8_BIT_RACH (to match current behavior if that makes sense)?
---
src/bts.cpp | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
src/bts.h | 9 ++++++++-
src/pcu_l1_if.cpp | 2 +-
src/pcuif_proto.h | 3 ++-
4 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/bts.cpp b/src/bts.cpp index 715fb51..a999c48 100644
--- a/src/bts.cpp
+++ b/src/bts.cpp
@@ -459,7 +459,7 @@ int BTS::rcv_imm_ass_cnf(const uint8_t *data, uint32_t fn)
return 0;
}
-int BTS::rcv_rach(uint8_t ra, uint32_t Fn, int16_t qta)
+int BTS::rcv_rach(uint16_t ra, uint32_t Fn, int16_t qta, uint8_t
+rach_type)
{
+ } else if(rach_type == GPRS_11_BIT_RACH ) {
+ if((ra & RACH_CAUSE_SINGLE_BLOCK) == 0x0600) {
please have a look at the Linux Kernel CodingStyle guidelines about necessary spaces
between the if keyword and the opening parenthesis.
In terms of style, could you move the code that select the 'sb' into a separate
(static inline) helper function. Not that we do it right now but in general this allows us
to unit test such things more easily.
+ } else if (rach_type == EGPRS_11_BIT_RACH) {
+ /*TODO*/
+
Do you think a log message is necessary here? Also in terms of TODO, maybe describe what
someone in the future should put there?
kind regards
holger
11 Mar
11 Mar
11:54 a.m.
Hi Bhargava,
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 02:12:06PM +0000, Bhargava Abhyankar wrote:
We see that in latest osmo-bts, PCU_IF_VERSION is
defined as 0x06
whereas in latest osmo-pcu, it is defined as 0x05.
I canno find 0x06 used in osmo-bts. On master, both bts and PCU are
using 0x05. Can you please indicate which version/branch you ar using?
Let us know the value to be taken for 11 bit RACH
support.
I would argue that you should bump to 0x07 on both sides if 0x06 was
ever used anywhere. If 0x06 was not used (I couldn't find it), bump to
0x06.
Also if you really have seen different versions, it seems we need to
cheeck if we really make sure that the version information is actually
checked. Any different version should make the OsmoPCU start-up fail
with a corresponding error message.
Regards,
Harald
--
- Harald Welte <laforge(a)gnumonks.org> http://laforge.gnumonks.org/
============================================================================
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
(ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)
12:13 p.m.
On 11 Mar 2016, at 11:54, Harald Welte
<laforge(a)gnumonks.org> wrote:
look at the last commit i made. I bumped the version during review of Max's changes
and then noticed it doesn't need to be bumped. When making the push I forgot to ammend
the revert for the version number increase. As no packages has been built and the PCU was
never upgraded, I moved back to 0x05 and think that 0x06 can be used for the 11bit RACH
changes.
holger
We see that in latest osmo-bts, PCU_IF_VERSION
is defined as 0x06
whereas in latest osmo-pcu, it is defined as 0x05.
I canno find 0x06 used in osmo-bts. On master, both bts and PCU are
using 0x05. Can you please indicate which version/branch you ar using
16 Mar
16 Mar
3:06 p.m.
Hello Holger,
The comments on 11 bit RACH support will be incorporated in next patches. We have
identified below mentioned
patches for the initial support of 11 bit RACH, and plan to release in series.
Please give your feedback.
* Interface changes and versioning increment in osmo-pcu.
* Interface changes and versioning increment in osmo-bts.
* 11 bit RACH handling in osmo-pcu.
* 11 bit RACH in osmo-bts.
* EGPRS 11 bit RACH handling in osmo-pcu.
* EGPRS 11 bit RACH handling in osmo-bts.
Thanks
Bhargava Abhyankar
-----Original Message-----
From: Holger Freyther [mailto:holger@freyther.de]
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 4:43 PM
To: Harald Welte <laforge(a)gnumonks.org>
Cc: Bhargava Abhyankar <Bhargava.Abhyankar(a)radisys.com>om>; Prasad Kaup
<Prasad.Kaup(a)radisys.com>om>; osmocom-net-gprs(a)lists.osmocom.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Support of 11 bit RACH
On 11 Mar 2016, at 11:54, Harald Welte
<laforge(a)gnumonks.org> wrote:
look at the last commit i made. I bumped the version during review of Max's changes
and then noticed it doesn't need to be bumped. When making the push I forgot to ammend
the revert for the version number increase. As no packages has been built and the PCU was
never upgraded, I moved back to 0x05 and think that 0x06 can be used for the 11bit RACH
changes.
holger
We see that in latest osmo-bts, PCU_IF_VERSION
is defined as 0x06
whereas in latest osmo-pcu, it is defined as 0x05.
I canno find 0x06 used in osmo-bts. On master, both bts and PCU are
using 0x05. Can you please indicate which version/branch you ar using
2986
days inactive
2994
days old
osmocom-net-gprs@lists.osmocom.org
5 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Bhargava Abhyankar -
Harald Welte -
Holger Freyther