scaling with 2^mu is already part of 'bw_scaling', so don't do it twice!
Also simplify the computation in get_bw_scaling() by using a one-line computation instead of a switch-case table.
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.
Testing RA with OAI gNB and UE both using X300 via PCIe link indicated a value of 15 was way too small.
The correct value for this setup seems to be 65.
Tests with our USRP X300, connected via PCIe, show that tx_sample_advance of 45 is slightly too much.
Unfortunately, transmitting the PRACH preamble too early is very bad, slightly too late is no problem.
So change this value from 45 to 40. This helps receiving the PRACH preamble reliably.
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.
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.
kn.raju