Oh, okay, I didn’t get that. Understood now. I have UHD 3.14.0 running on my main machine so I could try again some newer .bit files into the FPGA than I previously have tried (I tried the current version of UHD and N210 usrp_n210_r4_fpga.bit to no avail) to see if any of them are compatible. I also was able to build UHD 3.9.0 on a different machine so I can try that too with some of the other .bit files. Will hold the safe button down while loading the FPGA this time around.
Joe > On May 9, 2019, at 3:38 PM, Nick Foster <bistrom...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm saying that you might try to continue the effort to JTAG load a more > modern FPGA image. It's possible you have to hold down the safe mode button > while loading the image. > > On Thu, May 9, 2019, 2:22 PM Joe Martin <k...@k5so.com > <mailto:k...@k5so.com>> wrote: > Thanks for digging into that for us, Nick. Interesting. As the hardware > change to rev4 occurred around mid 2011 and the earliest UHD version that > exists on the files.ettus.com/uhd <http://files.ettus.com/uhd> page is Feb > 2104, what is the likelihood in your opinion that the UHD version will be > compatible with the rev2/3 hardware from 2011? > > So far I’ve not been successful in reviving the 2014 UHD version so I’m > asking to determine whether continued effort to do so is likely to yield > anything positive with respect to interfacing with the 2011 hardware. > > Joe > >> On May 9, 2019, at 3:06 PM, Nick Foster <bistrom...@gmail.com >> <mailto:bistrom...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> So I really dug into the old archives here and literally pulled an old hard >> drive out of a closet, and found a copy of the old hardware repository from >> back in the days when N210 was called "USRP2+". Best that I can tell, we >> only ever released two versions to the public. We might have sold R3 >> stickered as R2 -- I don't see anything in the repository that would >> indicate otherwise. Rev 2/3 was sold until around June or July 2011, when we >> moved to rev 4. The only firmware/host code changes I can see between any of >> the versions are that R4 used LVDS clocking to the daughterboard where >> previous versions used CMOS. So I think you should be able to run r3 >> firmware on your N210. >> >> That said, the very very old N210s with very very old firmware might not >> have used the same safe/production firmware/fpga image arrangement that we >> later arrived at. The hardware is still fine, but you might be in for a bit >> of a deep dive to get it all running again. >> >> If you have a TTL-serial adapter or a logic analyzer that works as such, you >> can connect to the debug UART header and get printout information from the >> firmware at boot time. Another good idea would be to take a video of the >> front panel LEDs as you apply power -- the boot LED lights give good >> indication of the firmware/FPGA image loading process. >> >> Nick >> >> On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 1:42 PM Joe Martin via USRP-users >> <usrp-users@lists.ettus.com <mailto:usrp-users@lists.ettus.com>> wrote: >> Thanks for the info, Marcus. However, seeing that Jason went through this >> last year with a couple of N210 he has it would seem unlikely that all three >> of the N210 are broken. That being said and considering what you jus said >> it seems that I should’ve been able to find some version of UHD that will >> successfully communicate with the firmware and fpga images stored in the >> unit; I have not, using UHD versions from 3.9.0 to 3.14.0. >> >> I wanted to try with even earlier versions of UHD but am finding trouble in >> utilizing UHD v3.4.0 (earliest version I could find) as it seems that >> “prebuilt” v3.4.0 needs only Ubuntu 10.10 or 11.10 which so far I’m not able >> to successfully install and run. Seems we’re running out of option on this >> one so the Deep Space Exploration Society, who I’m trying to help with this, >> may have to come to grasps with the notion that their N210 is a true brick. >> >> Joe >> >>> On May 9, 2019, at 2:23 PM, Marcus D. Leech via USRP-users >>> <usrp-users@lists.ettus.com <mailto:usrp-users@lists.ettus.com>> wrote: >>> >>> On 05/09/2019 04:18 PM, Joe Martin via USRP-users wrote: >>>> Nick, Ian, >>>> >>>> If this unit happens to be incorrectly labeled as a rev 2 N210 and it is >>>> actually a rev 3 N210, is there hope in being able to load rev 3 firmware >>>> and fpga images (which I have located previously and tried actually) with >>>> some available UHD version? If so, would you be able to tell me which UHD >>>> version(s) might be able to communicate with it? >>>> >>>> Joe >>>> >>> Theoretically, most versions in the last several years should be able to >>> talk to it. In *general* UHD never drops support for older hardware, >>> and tries to maintain compatibility. Now, it is the case that newer >>> features are almost never "back-ported", but basic functionality should >>> always be there. >>> >>> What this *should* mean is that you should be able to use the firmware >>> tools once the device is in "safe mode" to get yourself to where you >>> want to be. If that doesn't work, that may well mean that the hardware >>> is broken, and it's unlikely to be economical to repair. >>> >>> >>>>> On May 9, 2019, at 2:12 PM, Joe Martin via USRP-users >>>>> <usrp-users@lists.ettus.com <mailto:usrp-users@lists.ettus.com>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Okay. I’ve asserted from the outset that it’s a rev 2, based on the >>>>> factory label. Is this N210 a lost cause if it is actually a Rev2 N210? >>>>> >>>>> Joe >>>>> >>>>>> On May 9, 2019, at 2:05 PM, Nick Foster <bistrom...@gmail.com >>>>>> <mailto:bistrom...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, it's not a rev 4. It's either 2 or 3 in terms of hardware >>>>>> revision. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 12:58 PM Joe Martin <k...@k5so.com >>>>>> <mailto:k...@k5so.com>> wrote: >>>>>> …able to ping 192.168.10.2 successfully. >>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 9, 2019, at 1:54 PM, Joe Martin <k...@k5so.com >>>>>>> <mailto:k...@k5so.com>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ian, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, I have tried many times to boot in safe mode, same result >>>>>>> regardless. Yes, I am able to pin to 192.168.10.2 successfully. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Joe >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On May 9, 2019, at 1:47 PM, Joe Martin via USRP-users >>>>>>>> <usrp-users@lists.ettus.com <mailto:usrp-users@lists.ettus.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ian and Nick, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for the assistance. Attached are dropbox links to two snapshot >>>>>>>> photos: 1) the factory label on the back of the N210, showing N210 >>>>>>>> r:2.0 and 2) a top side view of the N210. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1) https://www.dropbox.com/s/u92x02rni71kfb3/20190509_133253.jpg?dl=0 >>>>>>>> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/u92x02rni71kfb3/20190509_133253.jpg?dl=0> >>>>>>>> 2) https://www.dropbox.com/s/1p8ocqf4qcr9ohb/20190509_133800.jpg?dl=0 >>>>>>>> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/1p8ocqf4qcr9ohb/20190509_133800.jpg?dl=0> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Seems this unit is indeed a rev 2 N210, yes? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Joe >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On May 9, 2019, at 12:40 PM, Nick Foster <bistrom...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>> <mailto:bistrom...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Moreover, the best "tell" is to look at the N210 motherboard. If the >>>>>>>>> SRAM chip is on the top side, it's a rev 2/3. If the SRAM is on the >>>>>>>>> bottom side, it's a rev 4. If you send a picture along of the top of >>>>>>>>> the N210, I can tell you if it's early or late rev. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 11:36 AM Ian Buckley via USRP-users >>>>>>>>> <usrp-users@lists.ettus.com <mailto:usrp-users@lists.ettus.com>> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Joe, >>>>>>>>> So I scratched my head about this a little late last night and looked >>>>>>>>> back through the development repository for the N210 and as far as I >>>>>>>>> can tell there was never customer facing FPGA code for a Rev2 N210. >>>>>>>>> Chatting with Matt this morning he shared my feeling that a Rev2 >>>>>>>>> wasn't sold to customers, so I'm curious if you have a unit that has >>>>>>>>> a factory label that says N210Rev2 or if you have seen "usrp2 rev2.0" >>>>>>>>> on the PCB (which can be missleading). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Also have you tried booting into the safe image and verifying that it >>>>>>>>> at least pings on 192.168.10.2? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If we can conclusively identify which rev of h/w you have I can >>>>>>>>> probably help further. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ian >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> USRP-users mailing list >>>>>>>> USRP-users@lists.ettus.com <mailto:USRP-users@lists.ettus.com> >>>>>>>> http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com >>>>>>>> <http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> USRP-users mailing list >>>>> USRP-users@lists.ettus.com <mailto:USRP-users@lists.ettus.com> >>>>> http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com >>>>> <http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> USRP-users mailing list >>>> USRP-users@lists.ettus.com <mailto:USRP-users@lists.ettus.com> >>>> http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com >>>> <http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> USRP-users mailing list >>> USRP-users@lists.ettus.com <mailto:USRP-users@lists.ettus.com> >>> http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com >>> <http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> USRP-users mailing list >> USRP-users@lists.ettus.com <mailto:USRP-users@lists.ettus.com> >> http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com >> <http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com> >
_______________________________________________ USRP-users mailing list USRP-users@lists.ettus.com http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com
