.CLKFB_OUT(ioport2_clk_unbuf),
.LOCKED(bus_clk_locked));
From: Nick Foster
Sent: Monday, August 5, 2019 10:39 PM
To: Cherif Diouf
Cc: usrp-users@lists.ettus.com
Subject: Re: [USRP-users] 214 MHz ce_clk vs 200 MHz radio_clk, USRP X310
All synthesized clocks are sy
ust 5, 2019 6:33:37 PM
> *To:* Cherif Diouf
> *Cc:* usrp-users@lists.ettus.com
> *Subject:* Re: [USRP-users] 214 MHz ce_clk vs 200 MHz radio_clk, USRP X310
>
> The radio TX frontend backpressures upstream blocks. You don't have to
> worry about providing samples at the frontend r
Best Regards
Cherif
From: Nick Foster
Sent: Monday, August 5, 2019 6:33:37 PM
To: Cherif Diouf
Cc: usrp-users@lists.ettus.com
Subject: Re: [USRP-users] 214 MHz ce_clk vs 200 MHz radio_clk, USRP X310
The radio TX frontend backpressures upstream blocks. You don&#
The radio TX frontend backpressures upstream blocks. You don't have to
worry about providing samples at the frontend rate. There is no reason to
use a 200MHz clock in your block.
Remember: if the frontend is operating at 200Msps, then the samples your
block is producing must assume a 200Msps sampl
Hello guys,
I am working with the X310 USRP. I have developed customed RFNoC CEs running at
ce_clk which is no more 200 MHz but rather 214 MHz.
So my blocks are providing samples to the RF frontends at 214 MSps. Is that
right?
Then how the operation can b
