Sure, but does it have different field types?
Den fre 2 maj 2025 06:39Tamás Regős <reg...@gmail.com> skrev:
> It's there 12 times.... with "scs-30kHz", "nr-rrc.scs_30kHz"
>
> { &hf_nr_rrc_scs_30kHz,
> { "scs-30kHz", "nr-rrc.scs_30kHz",
> FT_UINT32, BASE_DEC, VALS(nr_rrc_T_scs_30kHz_vals), 0,
> NULL, HFILL }},
>
> hf_nr_rrc_scs_30kHz
> hf_nr_rrc_scs_30kHz_01
> hf_nr_rrc_scs_30kHz_03
> hf_nr_rrc_scs_30kHz_04
> hf_nr_rrc_scs_30kHz_05
> hf_nr_rrc_scs_30kHz_06
> hf_nr_rrc_scs_30kHz_09
> hf_nr_rrc_scs_30kHz_10
> hf_nr_rrc_scs_30kHz_11
> hf_nr_rrc_scs_30kHz_12
> hf_nr_rrc_scs_30kHz_13
> hf_nr_rrc_scs_30kHz_14
>
> On Fri, 2 May 2025 at 11:33, Anders Broman <a.broma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The renaming was done to fix "the same filter name used for different ft
>> types". Maybe this one don't have a duplicate? If it has a duplicate than
>> it's a bug. If not it could still be renamed for consistency.
>> /Anders
>>
>> Den fre 2 maj 2025 05:37Tamás Regős <reg...@gmail.com> skrev:
>>
>>> Hi community,
>>>
>>> I have a question related to the nr-rrc protocol channelBWs scs-30kHz
>>> field name.
>>>
>>> As an example, in a UE Capability Information message for NR bands we
>>> have channel BWs DL/UL fr1 like this:
>>>
>>> channelBWs-DL: fr1 (0)
>>> fr1
>>> scs-15kHz: 0000 [bit length 10, 6 LSB pad bits, 0000 0000 00..
>>> .... decimal value 0]
>>> scs-30kHz: 77c0 [bit length 10, 6 LSB pad bits, 0111 0111 11..
>>> .... decimal value 479]
>>> scs-60kHz: 0000 [bit length 10, 6 LSB pad bits, 0000 0000 00..
>>> .... decimal value 0]
>>>
>>> The respective field names are:
>>> nr-rrc.bandNR.channelBWs_DL.fr1.scs_15kHz
>>> nr-rrc.scs_30kHz <---- why?
>>> nr-rrc.bandNR.channelBWs_DL.fr1.scs_60kHz
>>>
>>> These related to the asn1 .cnf file settings (30kHz is missing):
>>>
>>> #.FIELD_RENAME
>>> BandNR/channelBWs-DL/fr1/scs-15kHz
>>> bandNR_channelBWs-DL_fr1_scs-15kHz
>>> BandNR/channelBWs-UL/fr1/scs-15kHz
>>> bandNR_channelBWs-UL_fr1_scs-15kHz
>>> BandNR/channelBWs-DL/fr1/scs-60kHz
>>> bandNR_channelBWs-DL_fr1_scs-60kHz
>>> BandNR/channelBWs-UL/fr1/scs-60kHz
>>> bandNR_channelBWs-UL_fr1_scs-60kHz
>>>
>>> #.FIELD_ATTR
>>> BandNR/channelBWs-DL/fr1/scs-15kHz
>>> ABBREV=bandNR.channelBWs_DL.fr1.scs_15kHz
>>> BandNR/channelBWs-UL/fr1/scs-15kHz
>>> ABBREV=bandNR.channelBWs_UL.fr1.scs_15kHz
>>> BandNR/channelBWs-DL/fr1/scs-60kHz
>>> ABBREV=bandNR.channelBWs_DL.fr1.scs_60kHz
>>> BandNR/channelBWs-UL/fr1/scs-60kHz
>>> ABBREV=bandNR.channelBWs_UL.fr1.scs_60kHz
>>>
>>> header fields in the .c file:
>>> { &hf_nr_rrc_bandNR_channelBWs_DL_fr1_scs_15kHz,
>>> { "scs-15kHz", "nr-rrc.bandNR.channelBWs_DL.fr1.scs_15kHz",
>>> FT_BYTES, BASE_NONE, NULL, 0,
>>> "BIT_STRING_SIZE_10", HFILL }},
>>> { &*hf_nr_rrc_scs_30kHz_09*,
>>> { "scs-30kHz", "*nr-rrc.scs_30kHz*",
>>> FT_BYTES, BASE_NONE, NULL, 0,
>>> "BIT_STRING_SIZE_10", HFILL }},
>>> { &hf_nr_rrc_bandNR_channelBWs_DL_fr1_scs_60kHz,
>>> { "scs-60kHz", "nr-rrc.bandNR.channelBWs_DL.fr1.scs_60kHz",
>>> FT_BYTES, BASE_NONE, NULL, 0,
>>> "BIT_STRING_SIZE_10", HFILL }},
>>>
>>>
>>> Is this deliberate or a minor bug?
>>> Shouldn't there be the same logic for scs-30kHz too?
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Tamas
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wireshark-dev mailing list -- wireshark-dev@wireshark.org
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to wireshark-dev-le...@wireshark.org
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wireshark-dev mailing list -- wireshark-dev@wireshark.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wireshark-dev-le...@wireshark.org
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wireshark-dev mailing list -- wireshark-dev@wireshark.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to wireshark-dev-le...@wireshark.org
>
_______________________________________________
Wireshark-dev mailing list -- wireshark-dev@wireshark.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wireshark-dev-le...@wireshark.org
