At 01:14 PM 10/10/2007, Eric Wachsmann wrote: >Answers inline below. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > radio.biz] On Behalf Of Jim Lux > > Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 7:12 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [Flexradio] Definition of F5K control interface, MIDI, FWC > > class,API? > > > > --snip-- The question I have is whether the mapping of > > messages to functions is described anywhere. > >[Eric] Nowhere other than the minimal comments in the source.
<grin> there aren't any comments in the source (other than the license header), so minimal is the appropriate word. > >--snip-- > > FWC defines all the MIDI opcodes in a big ENUM (presumably, the > > firmware in the F5K and the list in FWC have to be consistent with > > each other?). Is there some sort of hash or checksum to validate > > this? (i.e. a opcode table version number?) > >[Eric] They do indeed need to match. No checksum, but we currently check >this by making sure that the firmware being used matches what PowerSDR is >expecting. Is there a policy,procedure,intention, etc. that you'll only add new functions at the end, and not reuse functions in the middle, so that a third party is "safe" in coding something that uses the existing mapping and being reasonably sure it won't break with a future firmware rev? > > > Are all the MIDI messages defined somewhere, with their parameters. > > i.e. what's the units for the float frequency being sent.. Hz? MHz? > > (It kind of looks like MHz from the code in console.cs) > >[Eric] All are in the files mentioned (see FWC folder in the source). The >units for the frequency are in MHz. So the message formats are essentially defined implicitly, based on how they happen to be coded in the current rev of the modules in FWC. So, the natural question is: how likely is it that an already existing message will have its semantics changed? > > If I wanted to write my own software to talk to the F5K, what's the > > appropriate level to be talking to it? > >[Eric] You basically presented the 2 best options. If you're going to use >Windows and C#, then it is probably best to just implement something based >on the existing C# fwc code. If you are going to do something in another >OS, OR want more flexibility in languages, it probably makes sense to >implement it at the MIDI layer. Is Flex-radio undertaking to keep either of those interfaces reasonably stable over the near term (say 2 years)? I would think the MIDI message interface is inherently more stable, because it represents hardware implementation. > > > And, it would appear that the SDR1K and F5K have entirely different > > control APIs. That is, one changes the F5K frequency by setting the > >[Eric] In the current instantiation of the software, yes. What about future instantiations? For the future, is it "safe" to code to the FWC interface as currently defined? Or will it change significantly in the near future (e.g. <2 years) Jim, W6RMK -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.flex-radio.biz/pipermail/flexradio_flex-radio.biz/attachments/20071010/28800c99/attachment.html _______________________________________________ FlexRadio mailing list [email protected] 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/
