Original Message-
> From: discuss-gnuradio-bounces+ulrika.uppman=foi...@gnu.org
> [mailto:discuss-gnuradio-bounces+ulrika.uppman=foi...@gnu.org]
> On Behalf Of Ulrika Uppman
> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 3:54 PM
> To: discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org
> Subject: RE: [Discuss-gnu
It looks like some of the demo apps have a samples per frame that is too
large for a typical 1500 byte MTU. Both rx samples and tx samples seem
to have this issue.
-Josh
On 02/23/2010 06:57 AM, Per Zetterberg wrote:
I now ran the vrt version and when I take the difference in ticks
between the
I now ran the vrt version and when I take the difference in ticks
between the packets and divide by the decimation rate, the result is
always 365. Seems more reasonable than the results by the other
versions, but I would still expect the value to be 371 since
samples_per_frame is set by default
To: j...@joshknows.com; discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org
> Subject: RE: [Discuss-gnuradio] RE: Timestamp value
>
> Hi, thanks for your reply.
> I have flashed the sd-card with the fpga and firmware images
> but I didn't get the git thing properly. After reading
> http://lists.gnu
om: discuss-gnuradio-bounces+ulrika.uppman=foi...@gnu.org
> [mailto:discuss-gnuradio-bounces+ulrika.uppman=foi...@gnu.org]
> On Behalf Of Josh Blum
> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 6:12 PM
> To: discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] RE: Timestamp value
>
&g
adio-bounces+ulrika.uppman=foi...@gnu.org]
On Behalf Of Ulrika Uppman
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 11:48 AM
To: Per Zetterberg
Cc: Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org
Subject: RE: [Discuss-gnuradio] RE: Timestamp value
Hi,
I have now tried both the git master and the vrt branch and
the results there are similar t
i...@gnu.org]
> On Behalf Of Ulrika Uppman
> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 11:48 AM
> To: Per Zetterberg
> Cc: Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org
> Subject: RE: [Discuss-gnuradio] RE: Timestamp value
>
> Hi,
> I have now tried both the git master and the vrt branch and
> the
nu.org
> Subject: Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] RE: Timestamp value
>
> >>
> >> Do anyone know why the difference in timestamp value
> between received
> >> packets is so big? What am I missing here?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
Ulrika Uppman wrote:
Oops, the printuts seems to have been mosched together in the mail, here is
that part once again:
ts_in = 1435221596, ts_last = 0, diff = 1435221596
ts_in = 2560802396, ts_last = 1435221596, diff = 1125580800
ts_in = 3367616092, ts_last = 2560802396, diff = 806813696
ts_in
Oops, the printuts seems to have been mosched together in the mail, here is
that part once again:
ts_in = 1435221596, ts_last = 0, diff = 1435221596
ts_in = 2560802396, ts_last = 1435221596, diff = 1125580800
ts_in = 3367616092, ts_last = 2560802396, diff = 806813696
ts_in = 4174429788, ts_last =
10 matches
Mail list logo
