Issue with current RBF?

We recently gave some quite successful demos for a sponsor. In order
to get one of the demos to work, we had to revert the RBF files from
the latest SVN trunk … we chose r4287 <
http://www.gnuradio.org/trac/changeset/4287

because that’s when the check in to fix the issue of turning off
the TX immediately after using it (for all practical purposes). There
might be more recent changesets that would work, but we didn’t have
time to test them out. Our program is a variant of benchmark_tx and
_rx in the digital directory - admittedly before the transition from
gr.flow_graph to gr.top_block - but a quick update seems to have done
no harm.

The issue we’re seeing is that when the USRP_TX is turned off in
Python, the USRP will still TX what was there before. We can very
clearly see this with out demo as well as a spectrum analyzer. This
happens using the latest trunk RBF, but not the RBF from r4287.

We’re working on Ubuntu 7.10, latest updates, but it happens using OSX
10.4 and 10.5 as well - so I think it’s the RBF or benchmark_XX code
at issue.

Anyone have any ideas that we might try to further track down the
issue, or thoughts as to where to correct this issue in the benchmark*
code? Thanks in advance. - MLD

On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Michael D. [email protected]
wrote:

This happens using the latest trunk RBF, but not the RBF from r4287.

If you could bisect this to a particular RBF revision, that wold be
immensley helpful. These don’t change that often:

http://gnuradio.org/trac/log/gnuradio/trunk/usrp/fpga/rbf/rev4/std_2rxhb_2tx.rbf


Johnathan C.
Corgan Enterprises LLC
http://corganenterprises.com/

On Apr 12, 2008, at 4:01 PM, Johnathan C. wrote:

On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Michael D. [email protected]
wrote:

This happens using the latest trunk RBF, but not the RBF from r4287.

If you could bisect this to a particular RBF revision, that wold be
immensley helpful. These don’t change that often:

http://gnuradio.org/trac/log/gnuradio/trunk/usrp/fpga/rbf/rev4/std_2rxhb_2tx.rbf

Yes, doing that is on our list. Any other thoughts? Anyone know if
the current benchmark_XX still have this behavior?

This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.

| Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs