[Top][All Lists]

## Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] USRP synchronization

 From: Matt Ettus Subject: Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] USRP synchronization Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 08:19:17 -0800 User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100301 Fedora/3.0.3-1.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.3

```
```
I'll be away until the 22nd, but will give you an update on the possible improved method when I get back.
```
Matt

On 03/11/2010 12:28 PM, ValentinG wrote:
```
```
```
```It depends where you are measuring.  The main 100 MHz clock should
always come up with the same phase.
```
```
Ok we've found the problem, we were measuring a 10MHz signal on the test
pins which is derived from 100MHz, therefore has a 10-way ambiguity, hence
different phases after power cycling... Checked the actual clock and it's
fine.

```
```Basically, divisions produce ambiguity, multiplications remove it.  To
take an example -- assume you are using a 10 MHz reference and your
final LO frequency is 2450 MHz.  The 10 MHz reference is multiplied up
to 100 MHz, and will have no phase ambiguity.  The 100 MHz is sent to
each daughterboard where it is divided by 16 to create the 6.25 MHz
compare frequency.  This will have a 16-way ambiguity.  This is then
multiplied up by 392 to get 2450.  16 is not a factor of 392, but 8 is.
So 16/8 = 2 and you get a 2-way ambiguity.
```
```
```
```If, on the other hand, you choose 2456.25 MHz for your LO frequency, the
multiplication factor is 393, which shares no common factors with 16,
and so you have 16-way ambiguity.  By judiciously choosing your R
divider and LO frequency, you can often get rid of the ambiguity.
```
```
In the example above you use the factor of 16 at the very start, where does
it come from? Is it the decimation rate we use or it can be arbitrary?

```
```I actually just thought of another possible way to do this which might
be even better, so let me think about that and I'll get back to you.
```
```
Great!:)

We have modified our c++ code to send all the configuration commands to the
USRP2 boards (frequency, decimation, etc.) at the very start and pause. Then
we perform 4 fetches of data, pausing after each one. 3 of those are then
used to get calibration data, which is then used to refine the results of
the 4th fetch. Is this a correct approach?

We have also tried sending all the configuration commands using a separate
c++ script and then using a different script to perform the fetches, but
that doesn't seem to work. Is that because every time the usrp2:make command
is called it resets the configuration of the board?

Regards,
Valentin

Matt Ettus wrote:
```
```
On 03/10/2010 06:39 AM, ValentinG wrote:
```
```
Thanks a lot for the answers!

Yes all of our boards are USRP2s.

We do have a common PPS signal provided by the external signal generator.
We
use code from the VRT branch and call set_time_at_next_pps for all 4
boards
to reset their times. Then we call start streaming for all 4 boards some
seconds later. This as we understand ensures the alignment of the samples
```
```
OK, then you just have the RF phase issues.

```
```
We use RFX2400 daughterboards.

There are a few other questions we wanted to ask:

1.) We observe a phase shift between MB clocks on different USRP2
MotherBoards which changes each time the USRP2 is reset. Is there a
finite
number of possibilities for that phase difference due to its PLL? How
many
are there?
```
```
It depends where you are measuring.  The main 100 MHz clock should
always come up with the same phase.

```
```2.) Does the PLL on the daughterboards uses the clock, generated on the
MBs
as a reference to lock the VCO signal used for downconversion? Or does it
use the external 10MHz clock as the reference?
```
```
It uses the clock from the motherboard, not the 10 MHz reference.

```
```3.) If there is a finite number for the phase differences (N) between MB
clocks and these are used to produce the down-converter signal, which can
also have a finite number of phase differences (M), this would imply that
we
can have NxM different phases, correct?
```
```
Basically, divisions produce ambiguity, multiplications remove it.  To
take an example -- assume you are using a 10 MHz reference and your
final LO frequency is 2450 MHz.  The 10 MHz reference is multiplied up
to 100 MHz, and will have no phase ambiguity.  The 100 MHz is sent to
each daughterboard where it is divided by 16 to create the 6.25 MHz
compare frequency.  This will have a 16-way ambiguity.  This is then
multiplied up by 392 to get 2450.  16 is not a factor of 392, but 8 is.
So 16/8 = 2 and you get a 2-way ambiguity.

If, on the other hand, you choose 2456.25 MHz for your LO frequency, the
multiplication factor is 393, which shares no common factors with 16,
and so you have 16-way ambiguity.  By judiciously choosing your R
divider and LO frequency, you can often get rid of the ambiguity.

I actually just thought of another possible way to do this which might
be even better, so let me think about that and I'll get back to you.

```
```
4.) Do the PLL's on the daugherboard tune every time a C++ or Python
program
is run or every time the board is powered on? i.e. for phased arrays will
we
just need to calibrate every time the board is powered on or every time
we
take a given stream of data?
```
```
Every time you send the tune command.  You should only send this when
you need to change frequency, not every time you start streaming.

```
```5.) How can we change the number of possible phases for the
daughterboard?
6.) Does reducing this number increase lock time?
```
```
Not a lot.

```
```7.) How can we tune so there is no ambiguity in the phase of the boards
like
you suggested?
```
```
Yes, you need to choose your factors carefully.

Matt

_______________________________________________

```
```
```
```

```

reply via email to