I see. Thanks for clearing that up.
So you can only fit those Marvell WLAN modules there or if needed, can you
switch to another one down the line?
Do you have an idea of per unit manufacturing costs for the XO 1.5?
Best regards,
Tiago
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 5:58 PM, John Watlington wrote:
>
>
On Mar 9, 2010, at 11:22 AM, Tiago Marques wrote:
> Thanks. The connector for the WLAN card did seem a mini-PCIe but I
> thought you were going to stick with SDIO.
We did. Don't confuse a connector with the bus used
with it. Many WLAN cards these days use a miniPCIe
connector/form factor bu
Thanks. The connector for the WLAN card did seem a mini-PCIe but I thought
you were going to stick with SDIO.
Best regards,
Tiago
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 10:10 PM, John Watlington wrote:
>
> On Mar 7, 2010, at 10:24 PM, Tiago Marques wrote:
>
> Hi Wad,
>>
>> Been reading some "lost" e-mails, so
On Mar 7, 2010, at 10:24 PM, Tiago Marques wrote:
> Hi Wad,
>
> Been reading some "lost" e-mails, sorry to be bumping this up.
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 10:35 PM, John Watlington
> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 27, 2010, at 12:17 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>>
>> > hi scott, thanks for join
Hi Wad,
Been reading some "lost" e-mails, sorry to be bumping this up.
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 10:35 PM, John Watlington wrote:
>
> On Jan 27, 2010, at 12:17 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>
> > hi scott, thanks for joining in, here.
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 3:01 PM, C. Scott An
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 12:17 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
wrote:
>
> miniPCI assumes there's a PCI bus. ARM SoCs don't have PCI (that i
> know of). the only SoC x86 chip i've heard about is the 1ghz IEC
The Marvell Armada series, specifically for example the PXA168 has
on-chip PCI Express
This whole discussion has been happening on the wrong mailing list.
Please move it to discuss-gnura...@gnu.org (subscribe at
http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuradio/mailinglists.html). They use and
maintain the GNU Radio free software that does SDR, and also design
and build the USRP hardware that's
On Jan 27, 2010, at 12:17 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> hi scott, thanks for joining in, here.
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 3:01 PM, C. Scott Ananian
> wrote:
>> Good luck with your SDR dreams. I think the most you can expect from
>> OLPC is that, *if* the 10 improbable things you
hi scott, thanks for joining in, here.
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 3:01 PM, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
>> so, there's therefore a wide-open opportunity to deploy SDR modems
>> which can be reprogrammed as a poor-man's Base Station in a pinch,
> I'm not sure why you think this is a radical idea.
i do
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
wrote:
> this stuff is juuust at the point where it's ready for
> mass-production. ordinarily this stuff would be snapped up by e.g.
> qualcomm etc. but i believe this is going to be different: the
> companies involved are ... well, t
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> if i want to write my own
> peer-to-peer 802.11 algorithms, doing an implementation e.g. of the
> Babel routing algorithm to run actually on the WIFI chip itself, can i
> do so, right now, _without_ being forced to sign a Marvell NDA?
The 88W8686 in the XO-1.
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 1:29 PM, John Watlington wrote:
>
> On Jan 26, 2010, at 6:46 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>
>> (and i also specifically mentioned the gnu-radio project resources as
>> being one option. there are a _lot_ of people who would be
>> _extremely_ happy to not have to
On Jan 26, 2010, at 6:46 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> (and i also specifically mentioned the gnu-radio project resources as
> being one option. there are a _lot_ of people who would be
> _extremely_ happy to not have to spend $750 on a USRP in order to do
> free software development
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 3:22 AM, John Watlington wrote:
>
> On Jan 26, 2010, at 2:07 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
>> wrote:
>>
>>> the key questions to be asking are: in light of the massive volumes
>>> involved with O
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 3:55 AM, John Watlington wrote:
>> _if_ all these things were true, _would_ the OLPC hardware design
>> team select such a COTS modem and its associated firmware
>> (over-and-above the rather dull Marvell 88688 option being deployed
>> right now in XO-1)?
>
> The XO-1 use
On Jan 26, 2010, at 4:58 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 6:33 PM, wrote:
>>> the key questions to be asking are: in light of the massive volumes
>>> involved with OLPC XOs, is SDR worth pursuing, given all the
>>> development costs, but given all the benefits e
On Jan 26, 2010, at 2:07 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
> wrote:
>
>> the key questions to be asking are: in light of the massive volumes
>> involved with OLPC XOs, is SDR worth pursuing, given all the
>> development costs
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> ok - i'm asking the wrong question :)
>
> let's assume that somewhere in 2010 an SDR modem exists (from
> someone, doesn't matter who made it). let's assume that software is
> available (COTS) and is (perhaps temporarily, perhaps permanen
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 6:33 PM, wrote:
>> the key questions to be asking are: in light of the massive volumes
>> involved with OLPC XOs, is SDR worth pursuing, given all the
>> development costs, but given all the benefits especially where SDR can
>> be re-programmed to do "whatever" in bands wh
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 6:35 PM, wrote:
> [...] projects. I'll bet that these chips can operate in that band, but not
> throughout the band without changing external components.
certainly mirics 80mhz->5ghz receiver chip has multiple RF inputs and
has i think it looks like it has 3 separate RF
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 6:52 PM, wrote:
>> http://www.limemicro.com/products.php
>>
>> you can see, from the evaluation board, that there are _fourteen_
>> separate R.F. coax connectors, and that the product description says
>> "listen for GSM stuff as well as transmit". also it's 375mhz to 4g
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 4:24 PM, wrote:
>
>> imagine (and would you really want a device that could be wifi, OR GPS
>> OR but not more than one at a time?)
>
> http://www.limemicro.com/products.php
>
> you can see, from the evaluatio
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 4:24 PM, wrote:
> imagine (and would you really want a device that could be wifi, OR GPS
> OR but not more than one at a time?)
http://www.limemicro.com/products.php
you can see, from the evaluation board, that there are _fourteen_
separate R.F. coax connectors, a
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
> wrote:
>
>> the key questions to be asking are: in light of the massive volumes
>> involved with OLPC XOs, is SDR worth pursuing, given all the
>> development costs, but giv
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 4:24 PM, wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>>
>>> i've been doing some research and found a couple of companies with SDR
>>> R.F. front-end ICs. one is 40nm and is so tiny that it
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 4:25 PM, wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010, NoiseEHC wrote:
>
>>> i've been doing some research and found a couple of companies with SDR
>>> R.F. front-end ICs. one is 40nm and is so tiny that it will only cost
>>> about $2, mass-produced. also thanks to being in 40nm, the sp
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
wrote:
> the key questions to be asking are: in light of the massive volumes
> involved with OLPC XOs, is SDR worth pursuing, given all the
> development costs, but given all the benefits especially where SDR can
> be re-programmed to
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 4:24 PM, wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>
>> i've been doing some research and found a couple of companies with SDR
>> R.F. front-end ICs. one is 40nm and is so tiny that it will only cost
>> about $2, mass-produced. also thanks to bein
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010, NoiseEHC wrote:
>> i've been doing some research and found a couple of companies with SDR
>> R.F. front-end ICs. one is 40nm and is so tiny that it will only cost
>> about $2, mass-produced. also thanks to being in 40nm, the speed of
>>
>
> vs
>
>> i repeat. all those can b
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> i've been doing some research and found a couple of companies with SDR
> R.F. front-end ICs. one is 40nm and is so tiny that it will only cost
> about $2, mass-produced. also thanks to being in 40nm, the speed of
> the (SoC / embedded) A
> i've been doing some research and found a couple of companies with SDR
> R.F. front-end ICs. one is 40nm and is so tiny that it will only cost
> about $2, mass-produced. also thanks to being in 40nm, the speed of
>
vs
> i repeat. all those can be replaced with _one_ i repeat _one_ single
Luke,
Looks like you have the incorrect link for the Openbts.org.
The correct link is now http://openbts.sourceforge.net/
/Robert H.
rihowa...@gmail.com
linux - the best things in life are free
On Jan 25, 2010, at 7:42 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> dear olpc devel people,
>
>
even this could be implemented. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.22
_especially_ 802.22 which is a perfect candidate for SDR because of the
need to cooperate, and not interfere with the existing TV transmissions.
anything - absolutely, absolutely anything. with SDR, you get
_proper_ freedom
dear olpc devel people,
i've been doing some research and found a couple of companies with SDR
R.F. front-end ICs. one is 40nm and is so tiny that it will only cost
about $2, mass-produced. also thanks to being in 40nm, the speed of
the (SoC / embedded) ARM9 core is so fast that it's perfectly c
34 matches
Mail list logo
