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://firstname.lastname@example.org/.Sebastian Stumpf sebastian.stumpf87 at googlemail.com
Hi Harald, thanks for the detailed response. > I also see that the RACH requesets all are sent with a bogus frame > number: 42. This will not work. The RACH request needs to be sent with > the current frame number at the time being. I fixed that and calculate the proper rach fn like in https://github.com/osmocom/osmocom-bb/blob/master/src/target/firmware/layer1/prim_rach.c#L137-L151 . > Also, RACH retransmissions > are happening way too quick. Calculating a proper frame number didn't fix the fast retransmissions. They are caused by sending the channel request over the virtual um immediately after getting the rach-request from layer23. Thus also the rach-confirm is sent to l23 immediately, so layer23 thinks "oh fine its already transmitted" and will generate the next rach-request for my layer 1. > I think one can do without on the MS side, but then the BTS must > basically queue the incoming frames until the respective frame number > indicated in the frame matches the current frame number. I think to fix the problem with the quick retransmission , I need some type of scheduling. Because if I queue the incoming uplink-msgs in the bts-virtual-layer1 instead, I don't know when they are processed on the ms side and thus don't know when to send the rach-confirm to layer23... My idea for a simple scheduler would be: -- no timing and timer interrupts on ms side, but just set the current fn in the ms state each time we receive a message on downlink to the fn of the received message, which is accessible in the gsmtap header. -- queue the outgoing uplink messages with their confirm callback to l2 and process all that with a smaller fn than the current fn in the scheduling function. -- calling the scheduling function each time we receive a msg on downlink (so I do not need to handle timer interrupts) I hope that will be sufficent and try it out tomorrow. I am a bit afraid of trouble caused by the frame number skipping values with the upper incrementation logic. With kind regards, Sebastian Stumpf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/baseband-devel/attachments/20170219/6d445816/attachment.htm>