[USRP-users] Problems using dsplink on E100

Thomas Tsou ttsou at vt.edu
Tue Feb 28 17:56:02 EST 2012

On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 2:46 AM, Andre Puschmann
<andre.puschmann at tu-ilmenau.de> wrote:
> That's certainly true. On the other hand, I guess the E1xx is just the
> beginning of a series of embedded SDR platforms. They all look pretty
> similar and are likely to benefit from the new approach. And there is
> another big thing: mainlining the code. The chance to get the kernel
> part of the E1xx mainline is IMHO higher if it's based on the general
> virtio appraoch. (I know for now there is no such things involved at all
> but it'll come.)

Yes, I agree with that outlook, though we've now gone well beyond the
original dsplink troubleshooting issues.

>> The other factor of future portability is that DSP access (independent
>> of video or imaging units) remains uncertain. Look up DSP Subsystem in
>> the omap4430 TRM and you'll find that "This information is not
>> available in the public domain." The omap4 includes a reduced
>> functionality c64x, 'Tesla', but you won't be able to access it
>> without an NDA, which is incredibly unfortunate.
> Ohh, I didn't know about that. Does that mean OMAP4, i.e. all the
> Pandaboards, are less powerful then OMAP3 in terms of DSP power and
> flexibility for open-source developments?

>From what I  understand, yes. Perhaps there is only a single set of
functional units instead of two? The Cortex-A9, which supposedly has
better NEON support, does make up for much of the difference though.
Note that I don't have any privileged knowledge here, so what I know
comes from hearsay and rumour.


More information about the USRP-users mailing list