On 4/16/07, Jim Lux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 10:28 AM 4/16/2007, Philip Covington wrote: > >O > > > >This does not sound like good news. It sounds as if certain features > >of the hardware will be controlled by firmware and without the source > >code to the firmware, you will not be able to make changes to the > >operation of the radio (those that the firmware restricts or > >controls). I hope that Flex is not going down the road of proprietary > >firmware like other manufacturers do. > > Or, to take a more benign view, the firmware is like that inside the > existing USB-RS232 and USB-Parallel converters, for which one > wouldn't have any expectation of being opensource. > > There'a a fair number of 1394b to whatever widgets out there that > give you a standards compliant implementation with the licensing fees > all paid, etc. > > What one wouldn't want to do is try do demand that the 1394 > implementation itself be open source. I just priced some 1394b cores > for an FPGA and they run around $100K for the equivalent of a black > box you can drop into your design. If you want source, it would be > substantially more. And, it goes without saying that the whole thing, > even in the cheaper version, is wrapped inside many layers of NDA. > > So, let's assume that there's some nice 1394 chipset that has the > 1394 PHY on one side, and some sort of generic interface on the other. > > > > >At least with the SDR-1000 you pretty much have control over all of > >the hardware features of the radio by modifying the PowerSDR source > >code. > > Indeed.. one can easily operate illegally, and that's as it should be > for an experimentation platform. > > However, as a "consumer product" perhaps not. The more that the > product of Flex-radio starts to look like a "box" (as opposed to > parts), the more likely that it will require various and sundry forms > of regulatory compliance. I think that horse is already out of the > barn (viz the inability to do scanning in the official PowerSDR releases). > > BUT, I don't see this being a huge problem, as long as the interfaces > are exposed. It's not like people want to see the microcode inside > the DDS's internal controller, or are clamoring for changes in the > DDS internals. Whatever is "firmware" controlled in the Flex 5K > makes it more "hardware" than "software", just as you don't (usually) > go in and change component values on the PCBs, or the pinout of the opamps. > > OTOH, if the firmware interface starts to look very high level.. say > like CAT commands, and a significant part of the signal processing > gets hidden behind that interface, I can see your concern. > > And, another thing to consider.. perhaps the SDR nK has grown > up? It's not a experimenter's platform any more? > > > > Jim, W6RMK
Let's hope that this is just a miscommunication and there is no firmware to restrict things like frequency coverage. Maybe the FAQ writer was referring the the PowerSDR software when he mentioned the "lock out". 73 Phil N8VB _______________________________________________ FlexRadio mailing list FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz http://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexradio_flex-radio.biz Archive Link: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ FlexRadio Knowledge Base: http://kb.flex-radio.com/ FlexRadio Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com/
