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/.
Peter Stuge peter at stuge.seHarald Welte wrote: > In order to avoid the most common problems, I propose exporting > something like a feature bitmask on the L1CTL, i.e. > > * L1CTL user code (layer23) can send a L1CTL_GET_FEAT_REQ request > * laye1 in the phone sends a L1CTL_GET_FEAT_RESP with all the bits > set to 1 for the features it supports > * L1CTL user code (layer23) can then check if all the features it needs are > supported by the L1. IF not, it can simply abort or print a warning to the > user. Any point in using names for features, rather than bits? > Obvious bits I would consider are: > > - is this firmware compiled with TX support? > - does this firmware contain a SIM reader driver? > - does this firmware support BURST_IND? > > Maybe we could also include a static header containing a compile > timestamp or the git date/revision that the firmware was built, as > well as a name of the board. Yes, all good stuff. //Peter