[PATCH 1/2] nas: add Get Operator Name and Operator Name indication

[Dan Williams]

On Mon, 2017-02-13 at 20:28 +0100, Aleksander Morgado wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 7:50 PM, Dan Williams <dcbw at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> > > > +    // NAS common TLVs
> > > > +
> > > > +   { "common-ref"         : "NAS Service Provider Name",
> > > > +     "name"               : "Service Provider Name",
> > > > +     "id"                 : "0x10",
> > > > +     "mandatory"          : "no",
> > > > +     "type"               : "TLV",
> > > > +     "format"             : "sequence",
> > > > +     "contents"           : [ { "name"   : "Display
> > > > Condition",
> > > > +                                "format" : "guint8" },
> > > 
> > > Any idea what this display condition is?
> > 
> > Looks like this TLV is really just EFspn in QMI TLV form.  So the
> > Display Condition is from ETSI TS 151 011 EFspn docs, which is a
> > bitfield:
> > 
> > b1=0: display of registered PLMN not required when
> > registered PLMN is either HPLMN or a PLMN in
> > the Service Provider PLMNN List (see EF SPDI ).
> > (I have 3 MVNO SIMs that return 0)
> > 
> > b1=1: display of registered PLMN required when
> > registered PLMN is either HPLMN or a PLMN in
> > the Service Provider PLMN List (see EF SPDI ).
> > (I have 1 MVNO SIM that returns 1)
> > 
> > b2=0: display of the service provider name is
> > required when registered PLMN is neither HPLMN
> > nor a PLMN in the service provider PLMN
> > list(see EF SPDI ).
> > 
> > b2=1: display of the service provider name is not
> > required when registered PLMN is neither HPLMN
> > nor a PLMN in the service provider PLMN
> > list(see EF SPDI ).
> > 
> > I suppose we could enum it for clarity?
> 
> Definitely yes. Maybe a flags enumeration with 2 items is just
> enough?
> Or better to have all 4 combinations in an enumeration?

So I did this as you'll see in the v2 patch.  But damn is the name long
since 1 << 0 means "required to show" but 1 << 1 means "not required to
show".  Thanks ETSI!

Dan