On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Eric Blossom <e...@comsec.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 03:32:49PM -0400, Catalin Patulea wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 12:00 PM, <discuss-gnuradio-requ...@gnu.org> wrote: >> > Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 16:02:43 +0800 >> > From: =?GB2312?B?TGlhbmcgWGluIMG66r8=?= <liangxin...@gmail.com> >> > Subject: [Discuss-gnuradio] About EEPROM and FX2(68013a) USB interface >> > in USRP >> > To: discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org >> Our board is also an unconfigured Cypress FX2 on power-up, so we will >> have a proprietary utility that changes the personality of the board. >> Once that is done, the board "looks" like a USRP, presenting the >> corresponding VID/PID and responding to the USRP USB protocol.
This seems like it can only cause problems down the line. Wouldn't it be better from a development point of view to keep your device as a separate VID/PID that is unique to you and simply abstract/link the existing USRP functions into your source/sink pair? This way, at a minimum, if the USRP code were changed someway that broke your fpga implementation, the graph would fail gracefully, as opposed to the host just happily sending samples along while your device does nothing. Not to mention this would give you the ability to extend the functionality of the source/sink pair to take advantage of anything your board happens to do better than the USRP. From your website it seems that you support a wider bandwidth and frequency range than the USRP, why limit your board? Jason _______________________________________________ Discuss-gnuradio mailing list Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
