Re: [Asterisk-Users] RX/TXgain on bristuff/zaptel ?

[Pisac]

I compiled it, and it's WORKING.

Thanks.

 

But, I would realy realy realy like that somebody explain to me how is exactly that bug hidden in those two segments? Where is difference?

Anybody?

 

1)

if (!IS_DIGITAL(ast->transfercapability)) {
set_actual_gain(p->subs[SUB_REAL].zfd, 0, p->rxgain, p->txgain, p->law);

} else {

set_actual_gain(p->subs[SUB_REAL].zfd, 0, 0, 0, p->law); }  

 

2)

if (IS_DIGITAL(ast->transfercapability)) {
set_actual_gain(p->subs[SUB_REAL].zfd, 0, 0, 0, p->law);

} else {

set_actual_gain(p->subs[SUB_REAL].zfd, 0, p->rxgain, p->txgain, p->law); }  

 

 

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Koopmann, Jan-Peter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

 

> You are right, only outgoing calls!
> I found lines that you mentioned, but I do not understand where is
> difference? In current chan_zap.c I read:
>
> if (!IS_DIGITAL(ast->transfercapability)) {
> set_actual_gain(p->subs[SUB_REAL].zfd, 0, p->rxgain, p->txgain,
> p->law); } else { set_actual_gain(p->subs[SUB_REAL].zfd, 0, 0, 0,
> p->law); }  
>
> And your suggestion is:
>
> if (IS_DIGITAL(ast->transfercapability)) {
> set_actual_gain(p->subs[SUB_REAL].zfd, 0, 0, 0, p->law); } else {
> set_actual_gain(p->subs[SUB_REAL].zfd, 0, p->rxgain, p->txgain,
> p->law); }  
>
> Which is the same thing but invertedly written. I'm not a programmer,
> so I may be wrong (maybe IS_DIGITAL could be NULL), but I would like
> to understand difference in those two segments. 

I know. It sounds crazy. Trust me though. Somehow the original does not work. This fix is from the bristuff developer himself and it does work.

Regards,
  JP

_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com --

Asterisk-Users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users