On Jun 2, 2015 8:40 AM, "Holger Freyther" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 30 May 2015, at 20:59, Alexander Chemeris < [email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Alexander, > > > > * Apply change even if the supplied value is higher than the 24dB maximum > > suggested by the standard, just warn about this. > > UmSITE and probably other SDR based BTS support much wider power > > regulation range. > > this certainly makes sense. We need to check in osmo-bts that “24 dB” in > reduction does not exceed the maximum.
Yes. I guess it's up to the BTS model to check that. > > Changes: > > > * Apply change to the BTS over OML immediately. > > that is nice but there is a bigger picture. Do we really want/can/need change > all VTY. We are certainly lacking in terms of live modification capabilities but > this path to add them might not be the right one. You might want to change > two parameters at once (switch the ARFCN and then use a higher output?). > > In the long-run I think we need to separate the running config from the one > that can be configured and with an “apply” you can then move the config around. > I am hesitant to merge a hunk like this right now wihtout having a goal/target > to improve the entire situation. See my reply in the other email. We can certainly discuss future, but I don't think it should hold a patch improving the current situation. > > * Apply change even if the supplied value is odd, just warn that it is rounded. > > Previously the value was not set at all, which may have lead to a situation when > > a user thinks the BTS operating at low power, while it is running full power. > > No we should not round. We could change the VTY command to list 0|2|4.. > 22|24|26.. Good idea. -- Regards, Alexander Chemeris CEO Fairwaves, Inc. https://fairwaves.co
