Lee Revell wrote:
On Sat, 2004-11-20 at 00:19 +0000, Simon Jenkins wrote:I was thinking of just enough DSP power to handle the protocol and to move
You were talking about a slightly more difficult and expensive thing than I was. I was thinking about:
1. A DSP implementation, not FPGA 2. A firewire interface, not PCI 3. Creating a "reference implementation" not a finished product.
I like the idea of a DSP-less reference implementation, then maybe a low end and a high end DSP option. This has the side benefit of making the choice of DSP more modular. Also some people just like DSPs, and some people are into host signal processing...
and buffer the data between I/O and host. I didn't mean actually doing audio
signal processing on the DSP itself, I just meant using one as a more convenient
and accessible platform for developing the protocol than an FPGA.
Given the protocol someone might then come along and implement it in an
FPGA, or they might use a more powerful DSP and start doing some serious
signal processing on the board itself. They might even stick fairly close to the
reference design if its any good. The real point of the development effort
would be an open protocol: The reference hardware design would just be a
means to that end.
Simon Jenkins
