Andrey and all,
18.03.2012 2:31 пользователь "Andrey Sviyazov" <andreysviyaz(a)gmail.com>
написал:
>> Regarding the GSM spec, I believe these blocker tests are hard to pass
and not that useful in most practical situations. However, I do not care
that much about passing this spec for my network deployment in Mayotte but
I really believe passing the spec will be very important for you if you
wish to sell your hardware solution to some major operators. Moreover, as
we would anyway need a superheterodyne selective filtering to get a
reasonably narrow Rx sampling band (< 1.5 MHz LMS band), it does not cost
that much more to try to pass the GSM spec.
>
> You right, it is important for us and may be it is really important for
systems with high channel dencity.
I completely support everything which could make our product better without
increasing its cost. But we also must ensure to release UmTRX in time. What
we all should keep on mind is that "the best is an enemy to a good". We
should focus on those 10% of simple tweaks which bring us 90% of
improvement. Otherwise we'll be swamped with the other 90% of tweaks and
will miss the market opportunity. I can't stress it more - we MUST release
UmTRX ASAP. Even if it doesn't meet macro-BTS requirements. We'll be able
to fix this in the next version if ever needed - we can't know the real
demand until we release the first version.
I would be glad of what I've just said is obvious and already lives in your
heart. Otherwise it's extremely important you understand this deeply, not
formally. Please let me know if you don't, I'll explain in more details.
> Furthermore, it is very easy to lose the reputation of the product, but
it is very difficult then to fix it back.
This is true. And the best way to keep the reputation is to realistically
understand UmTRX capabilities and avoid overmarketing. In other words, with
just reasonable product quality, our reputation depends solely on the right
marketing. E.g. we might explicitly warn customers that it's not suitable
for macro-BTS installations and they could do so on their own risk only.
> I think, low cost doesn't sign low quality, so we must to have good
hardware on market for good sales and promote OpenHW :)
This is very true. Just keep in mind that "good hardware" means "minimally
viable hardware at low price" and doesn't mean "super high quality mumbo
jumbo with many zeros in the price". Our customers value simplicity and low
cost over complexity and golden plates.
That said, I can't help with decisions on the RF side and here I rely on
you, guys. That's why it is so important for you to understand all these
"abstract" marketing ideas.
Sent from my Android device.
--
Regards,
Alexander Chemeris
CEO, Fairwaves LLC
http://fairwaves.ru
Hello.
Right now we're working on integrating UmTRX support into host UHD code.
The dboard_iface is obviously different from usrp2 and got to be written from scratch
(with compatible interfaces if possible).
As for plugging UmTRX into uhd::usrp::multi_usrp - there're several options in here:
1) Add support for UmTRX-specific clock and codec controllers into usrp2_impl with
boolean flag to differentiate between USRP2 and UmTRX.
2) Create dedicated "class umtrx_impl : public uhd::device" and implement codec and
clock controllers logic in there or inside UmTRX's dboard_iface.
3) Create separate lib/umtrx/* implementation without reuse\adoption of code from
lib/usrp2/*
What would be better option and why?
Bear in mind that the final goal is to run OpenBTS+UHD on UmTRX so we're interested
only in functions essential to OpenBTS. Though we want to keep changes to the
original code as small as possible and still reuse it as much as possible.
--
best regards,
Max, http://fairwaves.ru
Hi all,
I just realized I completely forgot to tell non-Russian people here
that the Fairwaves is getting together to have a UmTRX hackathon in
Moscow during this and the next weekends. The first hackathon is
starting today and is due at Sun (Feb 3-5) and the next one will be
the next Sat and Sun (Feb 11-12).
The goal is to prepare for MWC:
(1) bring up UmTRX to a minimal working state and get it working with OpenBTS,
(2) prepare casing, demos, marketing material, etc.
Participants from Fairwaves:
Andrey Karpenkov, Andrew Sviyzov, Andrey Bakhmat, Alexander
Chemeris, Ivan Kluchnikov, Max Suraev, Sergey Kostanbaev
I invite everyone else to join us remotely as well. :)
E.g. it would be awesome to have ICAP finally working to get Ethernet
flashing to work. TCXO taming to GPS is another topic to take on. UHD
integration is also an interesting topic with a lot of things to do.
--
Regards,
Alexander Chemeris.
Today I used a cheap external active GPS antenna with a thin 5 m cable (see
attached DS), but I had to solder SMA connector instead of unknown to me.
The current consumption of the antenna 11мА @ 3V.
About 2 minutes after a cold start, the status LED starts blinking 0.5 Hz
and 1PPS signal appears at the Clock output connector.
So, now we can to start work with the self-tuning of the TCXO.
Anyway, how realistic in the near time to implement an simple command
translator through the FTDI - FPGA for the SPI to each LMS to get at least
the signals of their synthesizers (also to UART for GPS, to SPI for DAC of
TCXO and etc. :).
It can be a simple protocol with virtual control registers addressing and
read/write or a few separate firmwares for each goal.
With such a tool at any time we will be able to check UmTRX operation with
some simple signals and an spectrum analyzer.
Also it will be very helpful for the understanding of how to work with LMS
control registers, which is poorly described in the documentation.
Have any thoughts or suggestions on this?
Best regards,
Andrey Sviyazov.
Hi Alexander,
I will meet the French fab next monday. I am quite optimistic. This company
looks really serious and prices seems to be reasonable.
They would need some information about the TI160808U601 and the
TI201209U121. Could you please let me know a supplier for these beads ? Do
you have an approximate idea of the price of these components ?
By the way, if it is not already included in the GPS chip, it might be
useful to add a 1575 MHz GPS SAW filter on the GPS Rx path. As we will
transmit a strong GSM Tx signal, it might saturate the GPS Rx if we place
the GPS antenna near the GSM antenna. What do you think ?
Please let me know.
Best regards.
Jean-Samuel.
:-)
Hi all,
A quick update.
We've received our 5 UmTRX proto units from a fab! Pictures are
attached (3D model is attached for comparison). Andrey Sviyazov is
soldering missing components to them as I type. He will do the first
power on later today. Lets have fingers crossed that it won't blow up
and I will be able to take one with me to 28C3. We plan to give that
one to Sylvain who is interested in helping us with bringing up. One
more will be sent to Robin and three will stay here, as we're spread
over three locations here.
--
Regards,
Alexander Chemeris.
Hi all,
Just an update.
We've finished PCB layout (ugh, finally!) and are sending them to a
fab today or tomorrow. Attached are latest files and 3D images of the
board.
I hope we'll be holding a working prototype in our hands soon!
Thank you all for your help!
--
Regards,
Alexander Chemeris.
Hi Jean-Samuel, Harald, Holger,
I've been quite for a while, so I want to make an update about the
state of our hardware.
On the FPGA development side we've been stuck for ~3 weeks, because
somethings happened with the power controller on our Xilinx SP-605
board and we've been waiting for TI's USB-TO-GPIO to flash this
controller. And now we're still dealing with this problem.
On the hardware side things are much better. We have "Release
Candidate" of schematics and working on PCB layout. We estimate that
layout will be finished in a week if we don't decide to change
something too much. In attachment you could find the latest versions
of schematics in PDF and Altium Designer formats, 3D view (pre-alpha
version), list of FPGA I/O and BOM. I would very much appreciate any
comments, questions, concerns and ideas about schematics, controls
placement, debug facilities, etc. It's much, much better to find bugs
and satisfy all requests now, then when we get PCBs printed.
Following the idea of Jean-Samuel we're trying to fit the PCB into
5.25" form-factor to be able to use various standard enclosures and
even mount the board into a standard PC cases instead of a CD-ROM
drive :) Right now estimated board size is 135х170mm, which perfectly
fits into 5.25" case.
Meantime I've created Google Code project to host our development:
http://code.google.com/p/umtrx/
It's empty yet, I plan to gradually fill it with information. I'm
happy to grant member rights for the project to any of you who is
willing to contribute to descriptions, code (not there yet), etc. Just
drop me an e-mail when you feel you need those rights.
--
Regards,
Alexander Chemeris.