Hi all, I try to build a RFNOC FPGA image for the USRP X310 according to the "Getting Started with RFNoC Development" web page (https://kb.ettus.com/Getting_Started_with_RFNoC_Development). Command: $ ./uhd_image_builder.py window fft -d x310 -t X310_RFNOC_HG -m 5 --fill-with-fifos The build process is successful with several critical warnings (see the attachment with the output of the build process). When I try to load to new image, the error message "The specified FPGA image is too large" aborts the process. My command to load the FPGA image: $ uhd_image_loader --args "type=x300,addr=192.168.40.2" --fpga-path ~/workarea-rfnoc/uhd/fpga-src/usrp3/top/x300/build/usrp_x310_fpga_RFNOC_HG.bit [INFO] [UHD] linux; GNU C++ version 5.4.0 20160609; Boost_105800; UHD_4.0.0.rfnoc-devel-788-g1f8463cc Error: RuntimeError: The specified FPGA image is too large: 15878040 vs. 15878032 Do you have any idea what is going wrong? And do I have to worry about the critical warnings? Versions: FPGA (https://github.com/EttusResearch/fpga.git): branch: rfnoc-devel, last tag: v3.12.0.0, commit 1b40696a7ede5c2593f36276071460f08bbf24b2, Author: Martin Braun <martin.braun@ettus.com>, Date:   Thu Jun 14 18:45:39 2018 -0700 Vivado: v2017.4_AR70455 Python 2.7.12 Thank you for your help, andreas

Sylvain

> ~/workarea-rfnoc/uhd/fpga-src/usrp3/top/x300/build/usrp_x310_fpga_RFNOC_HG.bit You need to use the .bin and not the .bit file. Cheers, Sylvain

  Sylvain

Hi Sylvain, Thank you for your help! It solved my problem. Just for curiosity: The .bit-file is exactly the same as the .bin-file, except that the .bit-file has an additional header, right? In my case (Vivado 2017.04), the header of the .bit-file is 124 Bytes while the uhd_image_loader assumes a header size of 116 Bytes. Depends this header size on the Vivado version or is there another effect leading to the different file sizes? Cheers, andreas On 22.08.2018 17:23, Sylvain Munaut wrote: >> ~/workarea-rfnoc/uhd/fpga-src/usrp3/top/x300/build/usrp_x310_fpga_RFNOC_HG.bit > You need to use the .bin and not the .bit file. > > Cheers, > > Sylvain

Sylvain

Hi, > Just for curiosity: > The .bit-file is exactly the same as the .bin-file, except that the > .bit-file has an additional header, right? In my case (Vivado 2017.04), > the header of the .bit-file is 124 Bytes while the uhd_image_loader > assumes a header size of 116 Bytes. Depends this header size on the > Vivado version or is there another effect leading to the different file > sizes? Sorry, I have no idea ... never looked into it. Cheers, Sylvain

 Sylvain

Andreas, you *should* be able to use the .bit file. Does this happen when you build from master branch? The Vivado version is correct. -- M On 08/23/2018 02:11 AM, Sylvain Munaut via USRP-users wrote: > Hi, > >> Just for curiosity: >> The .bit-file is exactly the same as the .bin-file, except that the >> .bit-file has an additional header, right? In my case (Vivado 2017.04), >> the header of the .bit-file is 124 Bytes while the uhd_image_loader >> assumes a header size of 116 Bytes. Depends this header size on the >> Vivado version or is there another effect leading to the different file >> sizes? > > Sorry, I have no idea ... never looked into it. > > Cheers, > > Sylvain > > _______________________________________________ > USRP-users mailing list > USRP-users@lists.ettus.com > http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com >