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/OpenBSC@lists.osmocom.org/.
Sipos Csaba sipos.csaba at kvk.uni-obuda.huHi,
> What is the reasoning for the bitfield here?
This is a two state flag (0 or 1), there is no point store more than that. Besides, all the previous variables are used like this. If this is not OK, then all the variables work like this already in the code are also not OK (look at wait_reset, skip_reset, did_reset etc.) It sure saves some memory, but its more like the general rule of thumb not to use more memory than it is necessary for a specific variable.
> In more recent times I prefer to go with string names instead of 0/1. E.g "hopping", "synthesizer".
Like my previous answer. I usually use the elements and coding style already considered OK (because it is in the code). If this is not OK, then a whole lot of the code is also not OK, and I don't feel my self up to refactoring all of it. What we can do is to go with this for now, and refactor the whole section later.
> For the above command you need to write documentation
Will look into this. How can I test if it causes any problems? I tested the code and it builds without a single warning, but I never used this end to end python test.
> Maybe use an enum to represent the two hopping options.
The same as the first and second answer. A lot of the alreday provided code is based on the previous bitfield approach for variable handling. I'd rather not change this on a per variable basis. I consider this a refactor task, and I don't think my coding skills are up to somethig like this. So if you don't mind I would stick to this for now, and will try and read a bit about what you suggested, and get back to this problem later, when I fully understand what needs to be done, and refactor all variables in the Nokia code to what you have in mind.
Regards,
Csaba
----- Eredeti üzenet -----
Feladó: "Holger Hans Peter Freyther" <holger at freyther.de>
Címzett: "Sipos Csaba" <sipos.csaba at kvk.uni-obuda.hu>
Másolatot kap: openbsc at lists.osmocom.org
Elküldött üzenetek: Vasárnap, 2015. Február. 8. 9:43:39
Tárgy: Re: [Patch]: Nokia: make hopping a user changeable parameter
On Sat, Feb 07, 2015 at 06:33:30PM +0100, Sipos Csaba wrote:
> Dear Holger,
Hi!
> It builds against the latest version of OpenBSC master.
what is preferred is if you could already make a git commit
and then use git send-email/git format-patch. Then I don't
have to come up with a commit message. :)
> - wait_reset:1;
> + wait_reset:1,
> + hopping_type:1;
What is the reasoning for the bitfield here? Do we want to
save memory? Is it a packed structure on the network? I think
I raised a point like this with the previous commit.
> + vty_out(vty, " nokia_site hopping-type %d%s", bts->nokia.hopping_type, VTY_NEWLINE);
In more recent times I prefer to go with string names instead
of 0/1. E.g "hopping", "synthesizer".
> +DEFUN(cfg_bts_nokia_site_hopping_type,
> + cfg_bts_nokia_site_hopping_type_cmd,
> + "nokia_site hopping-type (0|1)",
> + NOKIA_STR
> + "Set the hopping type. 0=Baseband hopping, 1=Synthesizer (RF) hopping\n")
This is likely to cause a failure with the python end to end
test. For the above command you need to write documentation
for "nokia_site" "hopping-type" "0" "1". This means the help
string needs to have four topics that end with a \n. I think
the documentation for "0" and "1" is missing.
> memcpy(fu_config + len, bts_config_2, sizeof(bts_config_2));
> /* set hopping mode (Baseband and RF hopping work for the MetroSite) */
> - if (need_hopping)
> - fu_config[len + 2 + 1] = 1; /* 0: no hopping, 1: Baseband hopping, 2: RF hopping */
> + if (need_hopping) {
> + if(hopping_type != 1){
> + LOGP(DNM, LOGL_NOTICE, "Baseband hopping selected!\n");
> + fu_config[len + 2 + 1] = 1; /* 0: no hopping, 1: Baseband hopping, 2: RF hopping */
> + }
> + else
> + {
> + LOGP(DNM, LOGL_NOTICE, "Synthesizer (RF) hopping selected!\n");
> + fu_config[len + 2 + 1] = 2; /* 0: no hopping, 1: Baseband hopping, 2: RF hopping */
> + }
> + }
Maybe use an enum to represent the two hopping options. This
way you can put the semantic/description into the enum and
don't need to write it twice. If you go with names for configuring
you can even directly map the values of the enum to "1" and "2"
which will allow you to remove the branch.
For all of this please have a look at the value_string struct
and how we go from string to number and number to string.