Thank you for the clarification.
now I went through the code again and it is clearer.
On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 6:37 PM Denis Kenzior <denkenz(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 08/06/2018 11:33 AM, Giacinto Cifelli wrote:
> Dear all,
> I have a question for the function build_cnmi_string() in
> The numeric values appear corrupted, like "2310" instead of
> example, from an excerpt:
> /* Sounds like 2 is the sanest mode */
> mode = "2310";
> Am I missing something, like a post-processing, or some specific
Yes, you're missing the fact that append_cnmi_element uses wanted_cnmi,
which selects the 'best' cnmi mode based on the reported modem capability.
> implementation not compliant with the 3GPP TS_27.005, or there is a
> problem with this function?