[Anders Broman <a.broman58@xxxxxxxxx>]

Sure, but does it have different field types?

Den fre 2 maj 2025 06:39Tamás Regős <regost@xxxxxxxxx> 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.broman58@xxxxxxxxx> 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 <regost@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to wireshark-dev-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

_______________________________________________
Wireshark-dev mailing list -- wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to wireshark-dev-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

_______________________________________________
Wireshark-dev mailing list -- wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to wireshark-dev-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxx