Rob, Thanks for the feedback! I like your suggestions. In fact, the bypass option is one that we've discussed a few times, since it would be very useful for debug and would allow some blocks to be statically routed that currently use the crossbar. We definitely want to make things easier for users. Please continue to share suggestions you have.
Thanks! Wade On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 10:08 AM Rob Kossler via USRP-users < usrp-users@lists.ettus.com> wrote: > While I am a big fan of the architectural changes to RFNoC with the > release of UHD 4.0, I have a couple of suggestions for improvement. I am > admittedly a novice FPGA developer so it's certainly possible that these > suggestions are "easier said than done" or poor choices for other reasons. > But, that won't stop me from suggesting them... > > - Remove to a greater extent the requirement for user logic to "care" > about packet lengths. In many cases, the user logic does not care about > packet lengths and MTU sizes and such. For example, if I am writing a > signal generator that is feeding a DUC/Radio, I may care about a time stamp > and EOB, but I simply do not care about RFNoC packet sizes. This is true in > several custom blocks I have written. However, in the current RFNoc > architecture, I am forced to care about them. At a minimum, I must set > tlast and depending upon the context model I choose, I may also have to > make sure that my context payload length matches this. It seems to me that > the custom noc_shell could be tweaked further to alleviate this burden for > more use cases. > - Provide an automatic "bypass" mode (or an option to enable this in > the block yml) in the custom noc_shell. I am talking about a capability > that would allow the user to bypass user logic by setting a register such > that the custom block would become a "thru" block. While I recognize that > this functionality is not appropriate to all blocks (e.g., 2 input, 3 > output), there are a large number of blocks for which this would be > helpful. Given the new capability for static routing, this would allow the > user to bypass a statically routed block. And, while I could certainly > implement such logic in all of my custom blocks, it would be more useful if > this were standard across all blocks including Ettus blocks such as DDC & > DUC. > > Rob > _______________________________________________ > USRP-users mailing list > 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
