|
From: | Brian Padalino |
Subject: | Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] updated packet format on USRP inband signaling |
Date: | Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:39:32 -0500 |
On 2/26/07, Eric Blossom <address@hidden> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 09:44:37PM +0100, Martin Dvh wrote: > MASKED_WRITE: > What I also miss is a masked write to registers: > Write Register: > > Opcode: OP_WRITE_REG_MASKED > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Opcode | 6 | mbz | Reg Number | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | MASK | > | Register Value | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > A Masked write would save you from needing to do a read, modify, > write over the BUS when you only want to change a single bit. Good idea. I'll add it.
Can't the host figure out what the new value should be using its shadowed values? Under which circumstances would you want to use the mask without the host already knowing the contents of the register if it had already been written? Another concern I had was with multiple read commands and the timestamp. If a control packet is sent down with multiple read commands and a timestamp of NOW - the first read is done ASAP and the timestamp field filled with the current time. Is this the way it should work, or should the timestamp represent the time the last piece of data was read? Should there be some other type of message which states a second timestamp at the end of the received control packet to say how long it took for the operation to complete? Brian
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |