On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 11:23 AM <chris_at_qelectronics.co.uk> wrote:
> Hello Aaron,
>
> Thanks for explaining the reason why the FSK binary wasn’t being built.
> Sure enough, adjusting the Makefile as suggested allowed the FSK executable
> binary to be built, and as a quick check the command ./FSK filerw ran
> successfully. The other modes of operation, which use the RF hardware in
> the Ettus E310, did not run as successfully; for example, a quick attempt
> to run ./FSK rx resulted in the error: No acceptable implementations
> found in any libraries for "ocpi.assets.devices.ad9361_adc_sub". I’m
> guessing this may be due to compatibility issues between the FSK
> application and openCPI 2.4.0, a component that I haven’t built correctly,
> or a mistake in my OCPI_LIBRARY_PATH?
>
It's more than likely a compatibility issue between FSK application and
v2.4.0, again, FSK application it's no longer actively supported and your
mileage may vary.
> I’m already aware that the fsk_modem_app.xml is the preferred (actively
> supported?) example program, and have already run that successfully. I was
> investigating the FSK application out of curiosity, given that it’s user
> guides are included in the release documentation for OpenCPI 2.4.0.
>
Yes, fsk_modem_app.xml is actively supported. Our documentation needs to be
updated to reflect that.
> On a related not, when creating a new OpenCPI application, is an *.xml
> file that is invoked using ‘ocpirun’ the preferred approach, or are C-based
> executables equally acceptable / recommended?
>
Creating applications that are invoked using `ocpirun` i.e. *.xml are often
easier to run and maintain but both are equally acceptable. It largely
depends on the application.
> Thanks,
>
> Chris Cotton
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list -- discuss_at_lists.opencpi.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave_at_lists.opencpi.org
>
Received on Thu Mar 03 2022 - 17:38:49 CST