Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Re: VRT_49.0 Protocol Spec

2010-04-26 Thread Marcus D. Leech
On 04/26/2010 08:00 PM, Matt Ettus wrote: > > > We are writing our own VRT code in UHD and not using any of the stuff > in GNU Radio. > > Thanks Matt, Josh already cleared that up a few minutes ago. -- Marcus Leech Principal Investigator Shirleys Bay Radio Astronomy Consortium http://www.sbrac.o

Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Re: VRT_49.0 Protocol Spec

2010-04-26 Thread Matt Ettus
On 04/26/2010 04:30 PM, Marcus D. Leech wrote: On 04/26/2010 07:01 PM, Eric Blossom wrote: FWIW, the code that's already written handles all of the cases consistently. It wasn't a big deal. There's a finite set of stuff and there's some machine generated code that handles all the optionally t

Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Re: VRT_49.0 Protocol Spec

2010-04-26 Thread Josh Blum
Also, am I to understand that the VRT code only handles the Rx path, and not the Tx path? Also, given that VRT will be used in UHD, what will the licensing implications be, since the VRT code is GPL only. [Not intending to stir up any controversy, just want to know what the broader pictu

Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Re: VRT_49.0 Protocol Spec

2010-04-26 Thread Marcus D. Leech
On 04/26/2010 07:01 PM, Eric Blossom wrote: > > FWIW, the code that's already written handles all of the cases > consistently. It wasn't a big deal. There's a finite set of stuff > and there's some machine generated code that handles all the optionally > there/not-there cases. > > Eric > > > J

Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Re: VRT_49.0 Protocol Spec

2010-04-26 Thread Eric Blossom
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 07:11:26PM -0400, Marcus D. Leech wrote: > On 04/26/2010 07:01 PM, Eric Blossom wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 03:26:46PM -0700, Matt Ettus wrote: > > > >> On 04/26/2010 03:19 PM, Marcus D. Leech wrote: > >> > >>> Optional fields, optional packing formats. Rathe

Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Re: VRT_49.0 Protocol Spec

2010-04-26 Thread Marcus D. Leech
On 04/26/2010 07:01 PM, Eric Blossom wrote: > On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 03:26:46PM -0700, Matt Ettus wrote: > >> On 04/26/2010 03:19 PM, Marcus D. Leech wrote: >> >>> Optional fields, optional packing formats. Rather a nightmare. Doing a >>> Wireshark parser is going to >>> be just so muc

Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Re: VRT_49.0 Protocol Spec

2010-04-26 Thread Eric Blossom
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 03:26:46PM -0700, Matt Ettus wrote: > On 04/26/2010 03:19 PM, Marcus D. Leech wrote: > >Optional fields, optional packing formats. Rather a nightmare. Doing a > >Wireshark parser is going to > > be just so much fun :-) > > > We use a very well defined subset of VRT whi

[Discuss-gnuradio] Re: VRT_49.0 Protocol Spec

2010-04-26 Thread Matt Ettus
On 04/26/2010 03:19 PM, Marcus D. Leech wrote: Optional fields, optional packing formats. Rather a nightmare. Doing a Wireshark parser is going to be just so much fun :-) We use a very well defined subset of VRT which makes parsing a lot easier. We don't use class fields, for example.