Just had a few q's regarding RFNoC in UHD 4.0 as I migrate my applications to it.
1. In the style of a tedious conference Q&A session, this is more of a comment than a question: I noticed NoCScript is dead: great! But it sure would be nice if there were something which filled the role of obviating the need for explicit block controllers for simple blocks. 2. I noticed both the "registers" sections of the YAML definitions are unused in stock UHD blocks and unlooked-for in rfnoc_blocktool's templating process. I also noticed a lot of <block_name>_regs.vh register definition files in the RFNoC Verilog blocks included in UHD, which look suspiciously like autogenerated boilerplate. Seems like something which would be reasonably straightforward (I say, having not done it myself) to implement in rfnoc_blocktool. What am I missing? 3. I'm a little unclear on the difference between the rfnoc_chdr clock and ce_clk. Some block definitions just use one, some use both. I'm assuming the rfnoc_chdr clock is equivalent to the old bus_clk. Is the lack of a ce_clk in the block definition just to avoid having to route ce_clk to logic which doesn't require it? Is ce_clk decoupled entirely from radio_clk now on X310? 4. Is there a plan to integrate rfnoc_modtool and rfnoc_blocktool? At least within the same repository? The overlapping functionality between them is confusing. It would be a huge reduction in boilerplate madness if a single YAML block definition could result in both Verilog blocks and coordinated C++ block controllers being generated. Thanks for all the work on this: UHD 4.0 looks like a major improvement. Nick
_______________________________________________ USRP-users mailing list USRP-users@lists.ettus.com http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com
