(sorry for the hijack, but I felt it was somewhat on topic)
Just curious, I am sure there is a good reason, but why can't we build in our
own custom drivers (I am not a low-level linux guy, so I am sure it is probably
obvious)? So far we have been OK, but we have been a little nervous with
Hi again,
I received a few questions from some of you wanting to attend if it’s
possible to just attend a few days instead of all 5, and I just want to
clarify for everyone that the answer is yes. :)
Whether you are attending all 5 days or can only make one or a few, please
still RSVP to the
On 11/05/2018 07:58 AM, Jason Matusiak via USRP-users wrote:
> (sorry for the hijack, but I felt it was somewhat on topic)
>
Barely :)
Basically, kernel config fragments are your friend, study this change
and others like it:
On 11/05/2018 06:58 AM, tadikondasuresh wrote:
good evening to all,
Dear sir,
any remedy for rx2 is unlocked in usrp n210 wbx daughter card,
currently, it shows status Rx lo status is unlocked and only TX/RX
port is working,
please help me
Thanks & Regards,
Suresh T,
Navstar Integrated
Hi USRP-users,
I have an X300. I am trying to have the X300 send sampled data to the host
over a 10G network interface, and use an rx_streamer to receive the data
(using rx_stream->recv(), similar to many of the examples). I don't
completely understand the mechanism, but it appears there is
Hi Dan,
You can use the viv_modify_bd command to open the BD file in Vivado then
use the "Address Editor" tab to change how slave ports map to the master
port, which connects to DRAM. For example, after running "setupenv.sh" you
could run "viv_modify_bd ip/axi_intercon_2x64_256_bd/
I would like to personally thank Daniel, Ali, and Mathieu for working with
me to uncover the root cause of the issue. As a result of this issue, we
are discussing how we can improve the documentation for MPM and make it
more obvious when there are potential bug fixes that require rebuilding MPM.
Stupid question. I do a lot of work on both the E310 and X310. Currently I
setup my X310 via pybombs and then my E310 by hand (pybombs install doesn't
seem to work for us). The problem is that I am now maintaining two different
trees if I want to have the same OOT module in both. Is there
I am having trouble understanding the difference between radio select and
channels on the X310.
It appears that the X310 has a radio select A [FPGA block Radio_0] and B
[FPGA block Radio_1], but both of these only have one channel? Whenever I
try to use a channel 0 and channel 1 for Radio_0 I get
Hi Wade,
Thanks Wade, I’ve been digging around in those files, and I agree that if it is
invoking the 4x64 version it looks like the limit is 1 GB, not 32 MB. I am
somewhat confused by the existence of both a 2x and a 4x axi_intercon set of
files for the N310. In particular, in n3xx_core.v,
Hi,
I built an X310 FPGA image with 2 FFT blocks and I am now trying to run
simple tests from C++. After my own code failed with numerous peek/poke
error messages, I tried to use the example "rfnoc_rx_to_file", which allows
the user to specify any RFNoC block to place in between the radio and the
I assume the N3xx code used to use the 2x version and it wasn't renamed
when it was switched to 4x. Normally the instance name would correspond to
the module name.
I'll see if I can reproduce this on an N310.
Wade
On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 1:58 PM Lundberg, Daniel <
On 11/05/2018 04:41 PM, Anton Schlegel via USRP-users wrote:
I am having trouble understanding the difference between radio select
and channels on the X310.
It appears that the X310 has a radio select A [FPGA block Radio_0] and
B [FPGA block Radio_1], but both of these only have one channel?
**
* Save The Date *
* Call for Volunteers *
**
GNU Radio Conference 2019
14 matches
Mail list logo
