This is merely a historical archive of years 2008-2021, before the migration to mailman3.
A maintained and still updated list archive can be found at https://lists.osmocom.org/hyperkitty/list/baseband-devel@lists.osmocom.org/.
Dieter Spaar spaar at mirider.augusta.deHello, I noticed some issues in the following situation, I used the "testing" branch (I think it affects both current "testing" branches): - the signalling channel is an SDCCH/8 on a timeslot different from TS0, for example on TS4 - an ASSIGNMENT COMMAND switches to another channel on a different TS than the SDCCH/8, e.g. to TS2 Now the following two problems can happen: 1.) The ASSIGNMENT COMMAND releases the SDCCH/8 with an L1CTL_DM_REL_REQ. Depending on when the L1CTL_DM_REL_REQ is received, it could be that there are still burst scheduled for transmit (e.g. for the SACCH). Due to the L1CTL_DM_REL_REQ, rfch_get_params() will return wrong data (l1s.dedicated.type is now set to GSM_DCHAN_NONE) and the transmit of the bursts happens on the wrong ARFCN and/or TS. My temporary workaround is to clear every item in the scheduler including the current bucket when a L1CTL_DM_REL_REQ is received, this action requires to disable the FIQ, otherwise problems might happen. 2.) There is some code to check for a switch to a lower timeslot in check_lost_frame(). However it can happen that this code gets not triggered although it should: The ASSIGNMENT COMMAND causes a L1CTL_DM_REL_REQ, l1s.dedicated.type is now GSM_DCHAN_NONE ("0"). The next call to check_lost_frame() resets "last_ts" to 0. Now the new channel is assigned (in the example from above its a switch from TS4 to TS 2) and a "LOST" occures, however the required increment of the GSM time does not happen because "last_ts" is 0 although it should be 4. My current workaround is to not reset "last_ts" to 0 in check_lost_frame() but during "L1CTL_RESET_REQ: FULL!". I don't post any patches because my changes are really just ugly workaround which seem to work in (most) situations where it I otherwise observe failures. To really solve this issues something else should be done, maybe put the whole switch of a channel into an atomic operation instead of doing several operations (this is just an idea, maybe there are better solutions). Best regards, Dieter -- Dieter Spaar, Germany spaar at mirider.augusta.de