USRP Quartus project same version as GNURadio?

GNU Radio
1

Hi,

I’m trying to RUN my own RBF file with the Quartus project
(usrp_std.qpf).
The compilation goes through and I get usrp_std.rbf . However when I try
to
create a usrp source like so :

self.fpga_filename = “usrp_std.rbf”
self.u = usrp.source_c (decim_rate = self.usrp_decim,
fpga_filename=self.fpga_filename, mux =0)

I get an error

File “/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/gnuradio/usrp/usrp_swig.py”, line
1607 in source_c
return _usrp_swig.source_c(*args, **kwargs)
RuntimeError: can’t open usrp

Using the precompiled rbf works flawlessly (e.g. std_4rx_0tx.rbf)

Does the Quartus project have to come from the exact same gnuradio
version
as the one running on the device (I have release 3.1.3 on Quartus and
3.1.3+svn10302 r6.1 on the device itself) ?

Thanks

2

Mark

Have you made sure that the .rbf is in /usr/local/share/usrp/rev4?
Also, I think that when you issue ls -l when you are in the directory
containing the .rbf file, you should get:

-rw-r–r-- usrp_std.rbf

Sebastiaan

3

Thanks for the pointers.

I had already put my RBF where the others are (/usr/share/usrp/rev4) and
the
others (e.g. std_4rx_0tx.rbf) are working.
I fixed my file permissions, it is still not working, I was root
anyway…

Other hypotheses : Newer version of Quartus, gnuradio not built on
Windows
machine (only using fpga files in /usrp/fpga/…), std.ihx from same
version
as the one used to compile verilog.

Thanks for your input

Mark

4

Issue fixed thanks.

5

On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 02:30:19PM -0400, Mark Porter wrote:

Issue fixed thanks.

So that the archive has the answer, what was the fix?

Eric

6

On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 11:34:49AM -0400, Mark Porter wrote:

I get an error
3.1.3+svn10302 r6.1 on the device itself) ?

Thanks
Mark

Mark,

Can you please post the entire backtrace? If the library can’t find
your code, it’ll print something like,

fprintf (stderr, "Can't find fpga bitstream: %s\n", proto_filename);

Eric

7

Sure,

The RBF was loading properly, except that my test decimation value (256)
was
invalid for the new RBF, which was not clear to me. I thank you for your
help in eliminating causes.

Mark