Re: [Asterisk-Dev] Petition for IAX firmware

2005-04-09 Thread Mark Burkley
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 17:17:31 -0700, you wrote:


>>Out of curiosity, have you used the HSS interface using the
>> intel access library to do PSTN interfacing through the SiLabs SLIC?
>
>Ah, there's a rub. The intel access library has a non-gpl compatible
>license, and only works on the 2.4 kernel. It's a bletcherous port
>from a vxworks product, without a clean interface to userspace, and it
>is well despised (see item #2 in
>http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/mailinglists/faq.php).
>
>Not using it is as problematic as using it.

Interesting.  vxWorks was supported first so the whole user / kernel
breakdown was an after thought.  But most customers try to do as much
as possible in kernel space anyway.

>Given that asterisk already had some support for these slics we
>thought about bypassing the access library and porting the zaptel
>stuff over.

The access library encapsulates the interface to the NPE firmware
which does some of the TDM work for you such as aggregating timeslots
into 10ms samples without having to use any XScale cycles.

>At one point, we had trinity convergence's phone gateway software
>talking to the slics and talking to asterisk via localhost. Trinity's
>sip support was awfully primitive, and the phone quality nowhere near
>as a good as a dedicated sip phone...
>
>In the final evaluation we decided that everybody else was thinking
>that the analog->voip port market was going to explode, and we didn't
>need to be part of the debris. So we dropped the slics, put a big (but
>optional) memory mapped FPGA on the board, brought out the HSS port
>and 60 other pins,  and connected the FPGA up to another board... to
>do something really neat that hasn't been done before that I can't
>talk about in this forum, yet.
>
>> Also, have you used DSR to do codec accelerations or are you just
>> letting Asterisk do it native?
>
>See aformentioned licencing issue.
>
>Just letting asterisk do it native. The Xscale is one of the fastest
>embedded chips out there - aside from needing to one day soon replace
>the floating point routines in the tone generator and maybe in plc.c,
>it keeps up with a lot of sip/iax phones at our desired level of
>loading (which is less than a T1) on the gsm, ulaw and slinear codecs.
>The arm-integer only version of speex 1.1.7 is eating about 10% of cpu
>going to slinear. G726 is pretty good, but I haven't measured it. I'm
>told there's an int only reference stack for G729...
>
>(I keep thinking that in higher loaded situations the real issue is
>not the codec path but the threading overhead of linuxthreads vs nptl.
>anybody have hard data on asterisk on linuxthreads vs nptl)
>
>Now, if we were to shoot for 4T1s off the board, and willing to shift
>a lot more work to kernel space than we currently do, and cross
>license the code so that both Intel and Digium would be happy... to
>enter the really small pbx market as say a competitor to panasonic -
>with like a ton of funding - then using the full access library and
>the DSR routines becomes more appealing.
>
>If intel would GPL those libs, tho' - they would make a lot of people
>happy. 

It would make Intel happy too.  But Intel has key customers who will
not use the libraries (or buy the chips) if doing so forces them to
open source their proprietary code by linking it against Intel's GPL'd
code.

There was an initiative to do a dual license access library - I must
check its status to see if it is generally available.

This is unlikely to happen for DSR though - last I heard it was set to
remain closed.

-- 
Mark Burkley  ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
___
Asterisk-Dev mailing list
Asterisk-Dev@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev


Re: [Asterisk-Dev] Petition for IAX firmware

2005-04-07 Thread Andrew Kohlsmith
On April 6, 2005 10:36 pm, Jeremy McNamara wrote:
> That is totally incorrect.   Digium created a totally new design which
> just happens to be compatible with the Zaptel API.   The TEXXP cards are
> based on a much much more powerful T/E/J-1 Framer Chip instead of the
> old, dumb Dallas chip the Tormenta (Zapata) board designs utilize.

Fair enough; I thought that the TExxxP were incremental improvements on 
Tormentia, not radically new designs.  My mistake, and my apologies.

> You must not forget how much Mark/Digium contributed back to
> Jim/Zapata/Zaptel, before embarking on his own design.

I didn't forget it; as I said I thought these new cards were improvements on 
the original design, not brand new designs.  :-)

I appreciate you clearing this up, since I *know* I'm not the only one who was 
working off bad information.

-A.
___
Asterisk-Dev mailing list
Asterisk-Dev@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev


Re: [Asterisk-Dev] Petition for IAX firmware

2005-04-07 Thread Andrew Kohlsmith
On April 6, 2005 11:15 pm, Nick Bachmann wrote:
> > The specs are open source, Digium modified the open source, the Digium
> > firmware should be open source. Simple concept.
>
> I'm not sure what you're refering to here (which is why I don't like
> top-posting)... the specs for what?  Zaptel cards? They don't really
> have firmware.

You bet your ass they do.  The Xilinx Spartan II is an FPGA.  The TDM400P has 
a (very small) FPGA on it as well.  The VHDL and/or schematic for the logic 
inside these devices is what I would consider "firmware" for this discussion.

Again -- they don't have to open it up, and I'm certainly not demanding they 
do.  But saying that Digium's hardware is open or "can't" be open is 
misleading at best.

-A.
___
Asterisk-Dev mailing list
Asterisk-Dev@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev


Re: [Asterisk-Dev] Petition for IAX firmware

2005-04-07 Thread Andrew Kohlsmith
On April 6, 2005 10:32 pm, Jared Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 20:22 -0400, Andrew Kohlsmith wrote:
> > I guess; but in my mind Digium improved upon the Zaptel design and closed
> > it. Not exactly what the original poster was getting at.
>
> You have a point, but I for one am glad they're building good hardware.
> Let's not forget that the money Digium makes from selling hardware cards
> (even if they are "closed") helps sponsor Asterisk development.  I think
> the recent announcement about Kevin being hired (congrats Kevin!) is
> possible, for the most part, because Digium continues to sell their
> hardware cards.

Let me be clear -- I never said that improving on the design and closing it 
was bad.  That is fully within their right and it has worked for them!  I am 
ONLY suggesting that saying that Zaptel was a success because of the open 
design is perhaps a little misleading.

-A.
___
Asterisk-Dev mailing list
Asterisk-Dev@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev