[hpsdr] What can we do with 2 cards

[Larry Gadallah]

> Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 08:40:30 -0400
> From: "Philip Covington" <p.covington at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [hpsdr] What can we do with 2 cards
> To: Alex <harvilchuck at yahoo.com>
> Cc: HPSDR List <hpsdr at hpsdr.org>
> Message-ID:
>         <32aa05ee0605130540s3c121627wd03bd7f07c3f1229 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 5/13/06, Alex <harvilchuck at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I'm going to bring up my question from earlier.
> >
> >
> > Why not move the parallel port DSR-1000 control onto JANUS?
> >
> >
> > Then we have a 2 board solution (plus the backplane). SDR-1000 users can
> take advantage of other cards like:
> > GIBRALTAR -  to provide the 10MHz reference signal to the SDR-1000
> > SASQUATCH and the it-who-is-not-named gp I/O board  - or computerless
> SDR-1000 operation
> > (the gp I/O board can also replace the UCB).
> >
> > My vote is not to regress the OZY design, but to put the SDR-1000
> interface system requirements onto JANUS.
> > I know one argument put forward was:
> > Why send the SDR-1000 control commands down the ATLAS bus, deal with
> them at the OZY.
> >
> > Well, since we're going to have to handle other i/o commands coming from
> the host computer and sending them to the gp I/O card, why not let JANUS
> deal with the i/o for the SDR-1000.
> >
> > I am advocating to not assume SDR-1000 will always be "state of the
> art", but nor to ignore that installed user base.
> > The current card interfacing structure of the SDR-1000 leaves lots to be
> desired, the HPSDR can provide a good platofrm for expansion.
> >
> > No, I don't own any SDR-1000s
> >
> > We need to keep thinking everything through so the HPSDR will meet the
> requirements from the two interest areas:
> >
> > (a) SDR-1000 upgrading
> > (b) HPSDR as a full-up SDR itself (and as a real neat and useful generic
> benchtop device)
> >
> > Those are my 2 cents
> >
> > Alex, N3NP
>
> Yep, we really need to decide whether our primary goal is to support
> the SDR-1000 or whether we are buiding or own SDR.  The answer should
> be obvious...
>
> With that being said, I am trying to accomodate everyone's wishes as
> best as I can in the OZY design...
>
> 73 de Phil N8VB
>

If I understand Phil's comment correctly, we are trying to build our own
SDR. However, given the issues of minimum builds and parts orders,
cost/volume curves, etc. it seems reasonable to view support for the
SDR-1000 as a practical way to facilitate getting to the final goal. I
suppose then that each design change requests for SDR-1000 support has to be
weighed in terms of how much deviation from the final goal it causes, how
much it costs, etc.

FWIW - I think that a parallel port is/should be simple enough that it
shouldn't disrupt the overall architecture regardless of which board it is
put on. I find the requirement for a parallel control port a significant
deficiency in the SDR-1000 design. The radio should be controlled using a
USB port, and I have heard that a newer, more "open" USB to parallel cable
will be offered by Flex-Radio soon.

73,
-- 
Larry Gadallah, VE6VQ/W7
lgadallah AT gmail DOT com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openhpsdr.org/pipermail/hpsdr-openhpsdr.org/attachments/20060517/b2df6f75/attachment-0004.htm>