On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Brian Padalino wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 6:55 PM Ashish Chaudhari
> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 8:07 AM, Brian Padalino via USRP-users
>> wrote:
>> > Recently there was a significant change to the noc_block_vector_iir
>> > (specifically the vector_ii
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 8:07 AM, Brian Padalino via USRP-users
wrote:
> Recently there was a significant change to the noc_block_vector_iir
> (specifically the vector_iir):
>
>
> https://github.com/EttusResearch/fpga/commit/05ca30fe91330d54dcd005a3af4aeaa0dc26c8f8#diff-4b21f52231ba9f82bf132f633d594
Hi Zhongyuan,
>> Does 10Gbps SFP+ transceiver backward compatible with 1Gbps socket?
No it's not. Depending on what N310 FPGA image you build/use, the port
speeds are locked down. The HG image is 1G on SFP0 and 10G on SFP1
whereas the XG image has 10G on both SFP ports. The transceiver might
supp
Hi EJ,
Sorry for the delay here. From the FPGA's perspective if you have
something streaming between one set of blocks and then you start
streaming a different application on another set of previously unused
blocks, then the current clear implementation should still work as
long as the new applica
Hi EJ,
On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 5:06 AM, EJ Kreinar wrote:
> Hi Ashish,
>
> Thanks for the info about rfnoc changes. Quick question:
>
>> In rfnoc, we make a
>> distinction between reset and clear. A "reset" is meant to reset
>> everything in a module to the power-up state. A "clear" only resets
>>
Hi Brian,
I finally got a chance to look at that change in a bit more detail. I
need to test out this theory out but we may have added a regression
with the throttle commit I pointed out earlier. The issue would apply
to "sink" blocks only. We assert the clear_tx_seqnum signal when the
block is in
Hi Brian,
>> > Moreover, it seems like axi_wrapper.v uses clear_tx_seqnum to pass out
>> > config bus messages, so now that clear_tx_seqnum is set I am not able to
>> > use
>> > the config bus from the axi_wrapper.
>>
>> I think this is a side effect of the assumption that data cannot flow
>> thro
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 8:20 AM, Brian Padalino via USRP-users
wrote:
> I had some blocks that worked just fine with the old rfnoc-devel branch
> using 2015.4, but when this latest change to 2017.4 came in, my blocks
> stopped working.
>
> I've found that a significant change was how clear_tx_seqnu
