Hi Marcus,
> > According to the datasheet[0], the deviation should always be smaller
> > than 300kHz, and the following equation should be respected:
> >
> > (1) FDA + BRF/2 =< 500 kHz
> >
> > Why did you choose 500kHz as max for FDA, instead of 300kHz ? It looks like
> > a bug to me.
>
> My focus was always on OOK and ASK. PSK was only used for a few
> measurements in the laboratory, I engaged to check CE compliance.
> Most probably 500kHz was a value, that's common for PSK and I didn't pay
> any attention to the datasheet. So I think, you are right: This is a bug
> and could be revised.
> Never the less: While using it in the lab, the transmission was fine and
> the signals over air have been clean and fitted to the recommondations
> of the CE.
> >
> > Concerning the TODO, I can see two solutions currently:
> >
> > 1. Introduce a new rf69_get_bit_rate function which reads REG_BITRATE_MSB
> > and REG_BITRATE_LSB and returns reconstructed BRF.
> > We could use this function in rf69_set_deviation to retrieve the BRF.
> >
> > + clean
> > + intuitive
> > - heavy / slow
>
> Why not: I like clean and intuitive implementations. Since it's used
> during configuration, we shouldn't be that squeezed in time, that we
> need to hurry.
> >
> > 2. Store BRF somewhere in rf69.c, initialize it with the default value
> > (4.8 kb/s) and update it when rf69_set_bit_rate is called.
> >
> > + easy
> > - dirty, doesn't fit well with the design of rf69.c (do not store
> > anything, simply expose API)
>
> Up to my experience, storing reg values is always a bit problematic,
> since the value may be outdated. And if you update the value every time
> you want to use it to be sure, it's correct, there is no win in having
> the copy of the reg value.
> So this wouldn't be my favourite.
> >
> > I'd really prefer going for the first one, but I wanted to have your opinion
> > on this.
>
> Agree.
I'll prepare a patch addressing both issues. However I don't own test devices
so it would be really great if you could test it !
I'm currently thinking of adapting this driver for other HopeRf modules like
RFM69HCW or RFM12 so I will probably try to find some test equipement in the
future.
Thanks for your answer !
Regards,
Hugo
--
Hugo Lefeuvre (hle) | www.owl.eu.com
4096/ 9C4F C8BF A4B0 8FC5 48EB 56B8 1962 765B B9A8 BACA
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
