Power and Interfacing connectors.
Justin Kelly
For power connections I suggest the use of Anderson Power Poles. The circuit board and other types can be found here, PowerPole Connectors
I think the Pallallel AT Attached Packet Interface (A.K.A. PATAPI, IDE/EIDE) is a good starting place for a low cost board. IE mating an Ettus RF Daughter board to an adapter FPGA board via a cheap PATAPI card to the Computer.
again an example of a cheap VIA interface card, Cheap VIA VT6421A card. , When I have a moment I will draw a simple outline for the expansion board, with locations for mounting holes and the 40 pin connector.
What else should be included here?
PCI? formats?
PCIe? Mini? <- Hint Hint!
Justin N2TOH
Euripedes Rocha Filho
Euripedes
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Software Radio Peripheral" group.
To post to this group, send email to open-software-r...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to open-software-radio-p...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/open-software-radio-peripheral?hl=en.
Moeller
> I think the Pallallel AT Attached Packet Interface (A.K.A. PATAPI, IDE/EIDE) is a good starting place for a low cost board. IE mating an Ettus RF
> Daughter board to an adapter FPGA board via a cheap PATAPI card to the Computer.
Do you think you can handle the IDE protocols? Usually IDE devices in operating
systems are recognized as storage devices with storage device drivers.
I guess the hard drive protocol is not suited for such applications
and that a new communication protocol has to be defined.
For USB 3 there might be a possibility to use the driver from USRP1
with slight modifications.
Another problem of IDE: I don't have free slots any more.
My laptop has no slot at all.
Why not using USB2 for cheap devices and USB3/Ethernet
for higher-bandwidth devices?
Justin Kelly
like this in the hardware thread.
http://cgi.ebay.com/New-Mukii-TiP-Q120U3Si-SATA-IDE-USB-3-0-Adapter-/250711599289?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3a5f9368b9
the later versions of ATAPI use the SCSI command set with a different
interface, the common 40/80 pin IDE interface.
My interest in using PATAPI lay in the simple use of cheap hardware to
convert the PATAPI interface into USB 2.0/3.0, or ESATA, or Firewire.
Basically whatever you want easily.
plus PATAPI already runs at 100 Megabytes/sec Farhad claims it can be
made to run up to 200MB/s, in any case way faster then USB 2.0, and
100BaseT Ethernet
other then my vote for PATAPI, I'm also in favor of using Gigabit
ethernet, followed by USB 3.0
Justin N2TOH
Moeller
> the later versions of ATAPI use the SCSI command set with a different
> interface, the common 40/80 pin IDE interface.
At least SCSI is used for other than storage devices, like scanners.
> My interest in using PATAPI lay in the simple use of cheap hardware to
> convert the PATAPI interface into USB 2.0/3.0, or ESATA, or Firewire.
> Basically whatever you want easily.
But I think also the drivers convert IDE storage devices to standard
USB storage devices. I didn't need a special driver for the IDE to USB
hard drive connector. Surely you would have to develop a special driver
to handle "alternative" IDE devices. It would be kind of low-level if
the IO-pins have to be controlled individually. Usually, there is also
a master-slave system for IDE drives sharing a bus. But I don't know the
details of this protocol.
Possibly an advantage: if the IO pins could be controlled individually,
it might not need a special controller chip for the ADC.
Just connecting the ADC parallel pins to the IDE, plus a few control lines.
Will it work this way? Needs a pin-count ...
> plus PATAPI already runs at 100 Megabytes/sec Farhad claims it can be
> made to run up to 200MB/s, in any case way faster then USB 2.0, and
> 100BaseT Ethernet
Data rates are Ok. But for a low-cost solution, also the USB 2
data rate would be sufficient to cover about 10 MHz bandwith.
> other then my vote for PATAPI, I'm also in favor of using Gigabit
> ethernet, followed by USB 3.0
With USB 3 you are still USB 2 compatible at lower data rates.
Ethernet has the advantage that it can be switched on a local
network, it facilitates cabling, and it allows very long lines
(only a few meters for USB and IDE).
So, you could place the hardware close to the antenna, control
the device via network cables. It can save many valuable Decibels
of RF power.
Justin Kelly
At least SCSI is used for other than storage devices, like scanners.
A. I still have to research further just how much of the SCSI protocols are used in the latest stable version of the ATAPI standard.
But I think also the drivers convert IDE storage devices to standard
USB storage devices. I didn't need a special driver for the IDE to USB
hard drive connector. Surely you would have to develop a special driver
to handle "alternative" IDE devices. It would be kind of low-level if
the IO-pins have to be controlled individually. Usually, there is also
a master-slave system for IDE drives sharing a bus. But I don't know the
details of this protocol.
Possibly an advantage: if the IO pins could be controlled individually,
it might not need a special controller chip for the ADC.
Just connecting the ADC parallel pins to the IDE, plus a few control lines.
Will it work this way? Needs a pin-count ...
A. The PATAPI pin-out is easy to find, haven't given much thought on how to talk to it yet. One thought is to use an FPGA to make the board look like a Hard drive, and just stream the output as block reads, and DAC inputs as block writes.
Data rates are Ok. But for a low-cost solution, also the USB 2
data rate would be sufficient to cover about 10 MHz bandwith.
A. The only reason I bring the use of PATAPI up is maybe getting more bandwidth then USB 2.0 for less money the the other options that's all.
With USB 3 you are still USB 2 compatible at lower data rates.
Ethernet has the advantage that it can be switched on a local
network, it facilitates cabling, and it allows very long lines
(only a few meters for USB and IDE).
So, you could place the hardware close to the antenna, control
the device via network cables. It can save many valuable Decibels
of RF power.
A. yes backwards compatibility is good, and with Ethernet we can hope it will work with Power-Over-Ethernet.
Justin N2TOH