I have to revisit this whole thing because I have tried many different
configurations and I always get 30% BER, but when the TX is supplying the
data, I get 0% BER. So something seems strange.
Can someone verify that this test still works:
https://gitlab.com/opencpi/opencpi/-/tree/v1.7.0/projects/assets/applications/ad9361_adc_test
Thanks,
Brian
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 1:27 PM Davis Hoover <dhoover_at_geontech.com> wrote:
> You could copy the data_sub worker into your own project and do it that
> way. This may bring up other project namespacing issues, e.g. you might
> have to name the copy uniquely.
>
> IMO, the right suite of feature enhancements here would be:
> * add a mechanism for restricting possible parameter values in worker build
> configurations (the data_sub wouldn't have any restrictions, so its build
> XML would be empty and would never need to be modified by anyone),
> * assembly/container builds would automatically infer and build dependent
> workers
> * worker configurations would be built on-demand based on values inferred
> from component/build/worker/assembly/pfconfig/container XML
>
> Re: runtime modification of delays, it is important to clarify: we have
> ad9361_config_proxy.rcc, which is a dumb, low-level device proxy which has
> a property ad9361_init which sets the delay values. If this proxy is used
> alone, you will need to set the property values appropriately for your
> platform. Then there are smarter, higher-level proxies, e.g.
> fmcomms_2_3_rx.rcc, fmcomms_2_3_tx.rcc, and the newer-generation
> dig_radio_ctrlr_fmcomms_2_3.rcc, which have the smarts inside them to read
> the delays from the FPGA and assign them without the need to set any
> property.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Brian Padalino <bpadalino_at_gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 12:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [Discuss OpenCPI] Fwd: AD9361 LVDS Interface Delays
> To: Davis Hoover <dhoover_at_geontech.com>
> Cc: <discuss_at_lists.opencpi.org>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 12:19 PM Davis Hoover <dhoover_at_geontech.com> wrote:
>
> > No apology necessary. Hopefully we can clear this all up.
> >
> > The hardware delay values are read by software and then used to
> > populate the initialization struct.
> >
> > For some new FPGA/card scenario, one has to pick a delay value to
> > start with, and there's no way of knowing whether this value will work
> > until you build the first bitstream and observe its timing report.
> > After that initial "guess", totally agreed that guess and check is not
> > ideal.
> >
> > There are indeed 64k theoretical configurations, but in practice, only
> > on the order of 10-100 will ever be needed. For a new platform or a
> > new card, it's at most 1 additional combo. Once you find the combo of
> > values that works for you, please submit a merge request for any
> > additions to ad9361_data_sub-build.xml.
> >
>
> Is it possible to reference the ad9361_data_sub component out of tree and
> build that component just for me, or do I need to modify OpenCPI itself?
>
> If not, could this be a feature enhancement where I define new build
> configurations I need of core components without having to touch OpenCPI
> itself?
>
>
> >
> > So one creates/selects values in ad9361_data_sub-build.xml, enforce
> > use of those values in platform config/container XML and in the
> > constraints file. The paradigm we chose was build-time customization
> > instead of run-time.
> >
>
> Roger that. I found this script in the ad9361_adc_test and I am wondering
> if this does a runtime modification, or if it thinks it does but really
> doesn't?
>
>
>
> https://gitlab.com/opencpi/opencpi/-/blob/b3ce4a1390f3c81579e1b16746a5b9ad0c199639/projects/assets/applications/ad9361_adc_test/scripts/AD9361_BIST_PRBS_delays.sh
>
> Thanks,
> Brian
>
Received on Wed Jul 29 2020 - 18:09:46 CDT