On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 7:26 PM, Dan CaJacob <dan.caja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Does this change affect the recommended block settings to make the magic > happen? > > Very Respectfully, > > Dan CaJacob > No, this doesn't change the behavior too much. I suspect your settings will continue to work just fine. Tom > On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Tom Rondeau <t...@trondeau.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Bastian Bloessl <bloe...@ccs-labs.org> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 09 Sep 2014, at 15:42, Tom Rondeau <t...@trondeau.com> wrote: >>> >>> > On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 5:49 PM, Bastian Bloessl <bloe...@ccs-labs.org> >>> wrote: >>> > Hi all, >>> > >>> > looking at the clock recovery MM code, I wonder if >>> d_omega_relative_limit is a relative or absolute deviation from d_omega. >>> > >>> > Here it looks like absolute >>> > >>> https://github.com/gnuradio/gnuradio/blob/next/gr-digital/lib/clock_recovery_mm_ff_impl.cc#L107 >>> > >>> > Here it is relative >>> > >>> https://github.com/gnuradio/gnuradio/blob/next/gr-digital/lib/clock_recovery_mm_ff_impl.h#L57 >>> > >>> > (even though this code has no impact since d_{min,max}_omega is not >>> used.) >>> > >>> > >>> > I don’t have access to the book linked in the docs atm. >>> > >>> > Best, >>> > Bastian >>> > >>> > >>> > It is supposed to be relative. I'd have to verify the math on that >>> line 107 in the .cc file, but it's supposed to adjust the center position >>> of the current omega estimate and then apply the clipping. Then it adds the >>> mid point back to get it back to where it's centered. Try walking through >>> that line one more time to verify that it's doing that properly. But yes, >>> it's supposed to be relative to the original setting of omega. >>> > >>> >>> So this line asserts that the current (absolute) deviation (d_mega - >>> d_omega_mid) is smaller than the maximum allowed absolute deviation >>> (d_omega_mid * d_omega_relative_limit). AFAIS, the second argument is >>> missing “* d_omega_mid”. >>> >>> I will create a patch, then you can check if I got you right. >>> >>> Bastian >>> >> >> >> Just to follow up, Bastian was correct and we merged his patch in this >> week. >> >> Tom >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss-gnuradio mailing list >> Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org >> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Discuss-gnuradio mailing list Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
