Update blockList entries as array

[julian-st]

Removed multiple entries from the blockList and added specific entries.

[wolfram-ladurner]

Now while doing the review (your changes look fine now), I noticed that we have two times blacklist, everything else is named blocklist (it's not introduced by this PR, but it could easily be fixed). I guess this is not by intention, @roesekoSICKAG, @julian-st, what do you think?
If you agree, then we could fix it within this PR.

[roesekoSICKAG]

@wolfram-ladurner, @julian-st: I found more schemas which are not in use and removed them. Hope, it is fine with you.

[wolfram-ladurner]

Now everything is named "blacklist", but I think "blocklist" would be the right term, as it is used in the IOLW specification. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that in my previous comment...

[filip-42]

Hi everyone,

I talked to my colleagues about the code changes. Overall, they found the changes sensible. They only had the following comment regarding the upper and lower limits:

The upper and lower limit values ​​only make sense if they are permanently blocked. That is, if they are fixed in the blocklist as a kind of initial value.

These two frequencies must always be blocked as a buffer between the corner frequencies and the usable frequencies to prevent crosstalk.

As of now:

• Minimum: 2402
• Maximum: 2479

Therefore, from our perspective, the following would be more sensible:

• Minimum: 2403
• Maximum: 2478

Best regards
Philippe

[wolfram-ladurner]

Hi everyone,

I talked to my colleagues about the code changes. Overall, they found the changes sensible. They only had the following comment regarding the upper and lower limits:

The upper and lower limit values ​​only make sense if they are permanently blocked. That is, if they are fixed in the blocklist as a kind of initial value.

These two frequencies must always be blocked as a buffer between the corner frequencies and the usable frequencies to prevent crosstalk.

As of now:

• Minimum: 2402
• Maximum: 2479

Therefore, from our perspective, the following would be more sensible:

• Minimum: 2403
• Maximum: 2478

Best regards Philippe

Hi Philippe,

good catch, you are fully right, the details are given in the Annex H.1 of the IOLFW spec:

• channel 1 and 80 are used for configuration and can never be blocklisted
• channel 2 and 79 are always blocklisted (automatically/implicitely).
• channels 3 to 78 can be blocklisted via the blocklist.
  So the reduced range [2403, 2478] is the right one.