On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 11:12 PM, Andreas Eversberg <andreas(a)eversberg.eu> wrote:
> i see no
problem with that reject. i think it makes sense to reject TSC,
> if it does not match the TSC of first TRX. since trx manager interface
> seems to be designed to handle each TRX individually (even might be
> possible to run on different transceivers for one BTS), i would think it
> is a good idea to set TSC for every TRX.
>
>
We can easily move to separate TSC settings be removing the static
identifier. The only issue then is that OpenBTS will no longer work.
Perhaps the larger limitation is that we can't set TSC dynamically
after POWERON. This is because the midamble correlation sequence is
regenerated and is not thread safe.
There could be two command sets - one for OpenBTS compatibility, one
for more advanced systems.
i think that is not requited. TSC at openbsc is a global setting. by the
specs, it can be set for every timeslot individualy. i think it would be
good to keep it global, so the transceiver remains compatible to
openbsc. i can remove the TSC command from osmo-bts. alternatively, as
stated above, setting the same TSC, which is already running at TRX 0
could be just acknowledged, different TSC rejected.
once TSC is set, it cannot be changed, even after poweroff. i must
restart transceiver before every new start of osmo-bts. before osmo-bts
start provisioning transceiver, it sends poweroff to all trx. also if
bsc fails, transceiver is turned off and provisioned after bsc link is
restored. with the single trx version of transceiver it worked all the
time. i think there should be a solution for that problem.
And this leads us to the question that POWEROFF in the umtrx_dual_test
is not implemented at all.
Thomas, could you please rebase the umtrx_dual_test onto the recent
"fairwaves/master" branch? The DriveLoop/Transceiver split breaks a
number of patches and it would be better if you do it yourself.
--
Regards,
Alexander Chemeris.
CEO, Fairwaves LLC / ООО УмРадио
http://fairwaves.ru