Hi Rob, We only have the extension API available for MultiUSRP because that is the API that is meant to wrap away the complexity of RFNoC for typical use cases. If you start with RFNoC you know that you’ll have to work on a much lower level. I currently cannot tell if making `get_extension_factor()` could potentially have any bad impact. Can you please put this and the antenna mixin issue into our issue tracker? https://github.com/EttusResearch/uhd/issues I can’t promise a quick resolution, unfortunately, but at least we will be aware when planning our tasks.
Thanks, Martin From: Rob Kossler via USRP-users <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2026 7:22 PM To: usrp-users <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [USRP-users] Using extension interface with RFNoC API Hi, When using the multi_usrp API, it is relatively clear how to use the extensions interface. However, for an arbitrary RFNoC graph using the RFNoC API, it does not seem possible (without some cheating). Specifically, the function "get_extension_factory", which is needed to get an extension is not a public function. This function is called internally from multi_usrp_rfnoc, which is possible because this class uses include files from <uhdlib/...>. Is there a reason that extensions shouldn't be used without the multi_usrp API? Or, perhaps I am doing something wrong? Rob
_______________________________________________ USRP-users mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
