On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 1:47 PM Eugene Grayver
wrote:
> The hard part with raw UDP for samples is the flow control for the TX.
> Flow control latency is very tight at 200 Msps. Not saying it can't be
> done, but having 'native' support in the UHD would be better. I have fair
> understanding of
The hard part with raw UDP for samples is the flow control for the TX. Flow
control latency is very tight at 200 Msps. Not saying it can't be done, but
having 'native' support in the UHD would be better. I have fair understanding
of the UHD internals but would like to hear from Ettus before I
On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 12:00 PM Eugene Grayver
wrote:
> This is the fallback option. At 200 Msps ZMQ will probably not work (have
> not tried it yet).
>
Maybe some misunderstanding. ZMQ for command/control. Raw UDP for
samples. You might be able to write a radio class/library that plugs int
This is the fallback option. At 200 Msps ZMQ will probably not work (have not
tried it yet).
Eugene Grayver, Ph.D.
Aerospace Corp., Principal Engineer
Tel: 310.336.1274
From: Brian Padalino
Sent: Wednesday, Ap
On 26/04/2023 18:52, Brian Padalino wrote:
On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 6:33 PM Eugene Grayver
wrote:
How much would work would it take to allow two different PCs to
each control one of the channels on the X310? Would the work be
mostly on the host (software) side, or will some FPGA wor
On 26/04/2023 18:31, Eugene Grayver wrote:
How much would work would it take to allow two different PCs to each
control one of the channels on the X310? Would the work be mostly on
the host (software) side, or will some FPGA work be required? There
is no issue on the RX side (with the recent
On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 6:33 PM Eugene Grayver
wrote:
> How much would work would it take to allow two different PCs to each
> control one of the channels on the X310? Would the work be mostly on the
> host (software) side, or will some FPGA work be required? There is no
> issue on the RX side
