1. 02 Dec, 2015 1 commit
  2. 30 Nov, 2015 1 commit
  3. 26 Nov, 2015 1 commit
  4. 23 Nov, 2015 3 commits
  5. 18 Nov, 2015 1 commit
  6. 11 Nov, 2015 1 commit
  7. 10 Nov, 2015 2 commits
    • Cedric Roux's avatar
      Give a better name to this array. · 68249569
      Cedric Roux authored
      68249569
    • Cedric Roux's avatar
      This is a very basic fix, more work is needed. · f2b3597b
      Cedric Roux authored
      The problem seems that we reuse HARQ processes too early.
      For example, at subframe 0 we allocate PID 0. At subframe 4
      we receive an ACK. At subframe 5 we may well reallocate this
      PID. It seems category 3 UEs don't like that. They expect
      some delay. How much? I don't know. 8 maybe, as for UL.
      
      This commit forces allocation of HARQ PID:
        0 on subframe 1,
        1 on subframe 2,
        2 on subframe 3,
        3 on subframe 4,
        4 on subframe 6,
        5 on subframe 7,
        6 on subframe 8,
        7 on subframe 9.
      
      We don't use subframes 0 and 5 (for initial transmission at
      least). (Current develop branch doesn't either I think.)
      
      This is not a good solution, just a quick and dirty one. With this
      commit I can achieve 12Mbps with iperf UDP on a 5MHz band 7 carrier
      with a cat3 UE. And more than 11Mbps with iperf TCP. And a bad
      radio link.
      
      We may want to implement some sort of free-list and take the
      oldest PID in there, if it is older than let's say 8 subframes
      (that is: the last transmission with this pid was done more
      than 8 subframes ealier). We may well have no free PID if a
      lot of retransmissions are done.
      f2b3597b
  8. 28 Oct, 2015 1 commit
  9. 27 Oct, 2015 1 commit
  10. 26 Oct, 2015 13 commits
  11. 21 Oct, 2015 1 commit
  12. 20 Oct, 2015 3 commits
  13. 18 Oct, 2015 3 commits
  14. 15 Oct, 2015 3 commits
  15. 13 Oct, 2015 5 commits