[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Transmitting bursts with GRC by inserting SOB and

From: Marcus Müller
Subject: Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Transmitting bursts with GRC by inserting SOB and EOB
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 19:40:46 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0


interesting point.


How does your carrier look when you send bursts of >500 samples?


On 21.10.2014 19:29, Nowlan, Sean wrote:
> I'm concerned that the problem Frederik is observing has to do with the very short burst he is sending, something like 5 samples. I suspect this requires 1 call each to work and tag_work per 5 sample burst, which seems like an awful lot of context switching and overhead.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marcus Müller [mailto:address@hidden]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 1:24 PM
> To: Nowlan, Sean; address@hidden; Martin Braun
> Subject: Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Transmitting bursts with GRC by inserting SOB and EOB

Hi Sean,

aaah good catch! Yes, that's right; sob is safe.


On 21.10.2014 19:19, Nowlan, Sean wrote:
> From Marcus:
>> ... and that (wut) might be a bug, because it implies that, if the
>> stream has both a time tag and a sob tag, the question whether the tx
>> metadata has a time tag depends on in which order these tags are
>> sorted on the the tag storage multimap. Which might be random,
>> because tags are sorted only by tag offset.
>> @Martin: is there a reason that this is explicitely set to false
>> here, or can one just fix this by deleting a line?

> This appears to be handled correctly. Given the same tag offset, the
> order of tx_time vs. tx_sob tags should not matter. If tx_time is
> found first, it sets found_time_tag=true and
> _metadata.has_time_spec=true (lines 652 & 653). Then
> _metadata.has_time_spec is overwritten in the tx_sob check (line
> 665) with 'false', but is set back to 'true'  in line 743 due to
> found_time_tag being true.

> if (found_time_tag) { _metadata.has_time_spec = true; }

> If instead tx_sob is found first and tx_time second, then the time
> spec will also be set in line 743. So the question is whether setting
> _metadata.has_time_spec=false is really necessary. I'd say it's worth
> keeping in case the user doesn't always want to use tx_time stamps.
> The user may want to schedule some bursts but force others to transmit
> as soon as possible while still using the ATR functionality of the

> I know all this logic can be hard to follow, but it has to handle so
> many different cases and possibly span many calls to work and
> tag_work.

> From Frederik:
>> Unfortunately, even with the newest version the USRP is still
>> transmitting its carrier over the air. I tried both with the Message
>> Burst Source as well as with the Stream to Tagged Stream Block
>> combined with setting a Length Tag name in the USRP Sink.
>> With the Tag Debug Block I see tx_sob+tx_eob and the Length Tag,
>> respectively. They all seem to be at the right place and have the
>> right value.
>> The Length Tag should arrive properly at the Sink. I checked by
>> changing the tag's name at the Stream to Tagged Stream Block to
>> something stupid and finally got an "tG" printed out.

> It should be mentioned that there are two burst tag interfaces that
> cannot be mixed. if a Length Tag Name is specified to the constructor,
> all tx_sob and tx_eob tags will be ignored in tag_work to ensure the
> interfaces are mutually exclusive. If no Length Tag Name is specified,
> then tag_work will search for tx_sob/tx_eob tags and won't look for
> length tags.

> Sean

> On 21.10.2014 15:53, Frederik Wing wrote:
>> Hi Marcus,
>>>>> I cannot believe that there is no solution to it since the  
>>>>> "tags_demo" application shows that it is indeed possible.
>>>>> :-/
>>> that makes the two of us! I didn't get that when using tags_demo,
>>> you're not seeing the carrier that you use tags_demo; as far as I
>>> understood, your application does exactly the same, sending bursts
>>> with sob/eob tags?
>> That's right. tags_demo works perfectly. No carrier in between the
>> bursts. The flow graph I posted before sends exactly one burst with
>> SOB and EOB tags. The only difference to tags_demo I could recognize
>> so far is that I don't assign time stamps to the samples. But this
>> shouldn't be a problem, should it?
>> Frederik
>> _______________________________________________ Discuss-gnuradio  
>> mailing list address@hidden
>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss-gnuradio mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio

reply via email to

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