- 16 Feb, 2021 1 commit
-
-
cig authored
- scheduled_response was called regardless of the UL config in the PRACH slot this was leading to wrong behaviour since it was interfering with the UL config of PUSCH
-
- 15 Feb, 2021 1 commit
-
-
cig authored
-
- 12 Feb, 2021 3 commits
-
-
cig authored
- the RA SFN index wasn't increased in the FDD case, therefore the PRACH RX was never scheduled
-
cig authored
- missing check on duplex mode before fetching the TDD period - missing flags configuration for FDD mode
-
Thomas Schlichter authored
-
- 11 Feb, 2021 1 commit
-
-
Raphael Defosseux authored
This MR adds a multi-UE scheduler (proportional fair) for multiple UEs. Tested for two UEs, but should work for more. Additionally, it enables 12 DL slots and 2 UL slots (still fixed, will be read from the configuration file in a clean-up/follow-up MR). * MR 1019: NASMESH: support for kernel version >= 5.6.0 he syntax for ndo_tx_timeout in Linux Kernel has changed since 5.6.0 i.e it has changed * MR 1033: ue fixes 1. Write tx data to radio unit only on tx slots. 2. Fixed a bug in DL HARQ. 3. Disabled UE and some gNB side logs which were enabled (maybe by mistake) in previous MRs. 4. In UE, check if NDI toggled before reading SDU for PUSCH.
-
- 10 Feb, 2021 1 commit
-
-
Thomas Schlichter authored
-
- 09 Feb, 2021 5 commits
-
-
Robert Schmidt authored
-
hardy authored
-
hardy authored
-
hardy authored
-
Raphael Defosseux authored
Signed-off-by: Raphael Defosseux <raphael.defosseux@eurecom.fr>
-
- 08 Feb, 2021 4 commits
-
-
Thomas Schlichter authored
-
Sakthivel Velumani authored
-
Sakthivel Velumani authored
-
Robert Schmidt authored
This reverts commit 71e297de.
-
- 07 Feb, 2021 24 commits
-
-
Robert Schmidt authored
-
Robert Schmidt authored
As the precedent commit, this commit deals with the realtime problems that we currently have on the CI bench. For DL HARQ feedback, nFAPI does not give us the HARQ process ID. Instead, we have to figure this out "from timing", i.e., if we trigger PUCCH reception, we will get a message with HARQ if we instructed the PHY to do so. If we have real-time problems, it seems (I cannot verify: don't have real time problems) that we do not get the nFAPI message with HARQ feedback. Thus, we need to skip the HARQ processes that should have been processed in the past, which happens in this commit.
-
Robert Schmidt authored
At the time of this commit, the CI has realtime issues. This can mean that the HARQ result is delivered in a delayed fashion. Before this commit, we were asserting on whether the slot corresponds to the HARQ process's expected feedback slot, but a particular feedback might be delayed under realtime issues, and we actually don't care about the timing since we get the HARQ process ID. Instead, we loop through the HARQ processes for which we wait for a feedback in the beginning until we have the right process (which did not seem to cause a problem till now, but who knows.
-
Robert Schmidt authored
-
Robert Schmidt authored
-
Robert Schmidt authored
-
Robert Schmidt authored
-
Robert Schmidt authored
-
ChiehChun authored
-
ChiehChun authored
-
ChiehChun authored
-
Robert Schmidt authored
-
Robert Schmidt authored
-
Robert Schmidt authored
-
ChiehChun authored
-
ChiehChun authored
-
Robert Schmidt authored
-
ChiehChun authored
-
ChiehChun authored
-
Robert Schmidt authored
-
ChiehChun authored
-
ChiehChun authored
-
ChiehChun authored
-
ChiehChun authored
-