discuss-gnuradio
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Releases v3.8.4.0 and v3.9.3.0


From: Marcus D. Leech
Subject: Re: Releases v3.8.4.0 and v3.9.3.0
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2021 11:57:43 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0

On 2021-10-01 11:46 a.m., Franco VENTURI wrote:
Marcus,
I understand your point, however when writing a generic module for SoapySDR like 
SoapySDRPlay you have to try to be "everything for everybody", and that 
sometimes leads to tradeoff and 'opinionated choices' you have to make in module.

For instance when writing the SoapySDRPlay module, I mostly used CubicSDR as my 
'target' application, and in that case we had to make several choices (see for 
instance this thread: https://github.com/pothosware/SoapySDRPlay2/issues/62), 
which are well summarized in this sentence by Vincent Sonnier, one of the 
developers of CubicSDR 
(https://github.com/pothosware/SoapySDRPlay2/issues/62#issuecomment-571432329):

        I suppose that if we want to plug the square of RSP into the round of a 
Soapy module, we must cut corners eventually.

On the other hand, when I wrote the gr-sdrplay3 GNU Radio OOT module, I worked 
on the assumption of a more advanced user that wants to have full control of 
the capabilities of these RSP SDRs, while choosing sensible defaults that would 
still allow anyone familiar with GRC to use them in their flowgraphs easily.

Franco


This is a generic problem not just restricted to SDRPlay.  UHD devices have functionalities that aren't fully-captured by either of the abstraction libraries (gr-osmosdr or   SoapySDR).  But still probably 90% of my applications can still use the generic abstractions, even with UHD devices.

My own position is that folks writing flow-graphs should try to be abstracted from the hardware as much as possible.  That isn't always possible.





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]