Pages: 1 [2] 
|
 |
|
|
Author
|
Topic: stm32f4 vs stm32f7 compatibility (Read 9333 times)
|
|
DB4PLE
positron
Urgestein
 Offline
Posts: 1278
|
 |
Re:stm32f4 vs stm32f7 compatibility
« Reply #15 on: 14. September 2017, 09:41:30 »
|
|
Hello Markus,
Sorry Danilo,
one final question ;-)
The FW inside the github for the old mchf and the new OV I40 UHSDR
compiles for both of the MC's F4 and F7 according to the switches inside
the Makefile - right?
|
|
It is a bit differently organized, but there are some switches in the Makefile. Have a look.
Means this that the FW code include a huge amount of #defines to brunch
during compil time through the hw specific code?
And I do not speak about the #defines inside the HAL but about the community
code developed by you and others.
Markus
|
|
By using the HAL we get away with a fairly well controlled amount of these switches, but yes there is a share of these
in the code in the places where the architectures of the TRXs differ, not so many really related to the F4 vs. F7. Not too many, since we try to keep this properly organized.
So even if both TRX variants would use the same microprocessor, these differences would exist.
The processor related differences are handled below basesw/{mchf,ovi40} to 95% or something like that.
73
Danilo
|
|
 Logged
|
|
|
|
dl8mby
alter Hase
Offline
Posts: 363
Ich liebe dieses Forum!
|
|
Re:stm32f4 vs stm32f7 compatibility
« Reply #16 on: 14. September 2017, 10:06:28 »
|
|
Dear Andreas,
I had noticed that there are switches inside the Makefile to distinguish
between the F4 or F7 hw. My question focusing on the effort to be done
to write code for both scenarios F4 (old staff) and F7 (the new one).
Is the C code divided in different paths separated by #defines or how
huge is the effort to maintain both architectures.
vy73
Markus
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
dl8mby
alter Hase
Offline
Posts: 363
Ich liebe dieses Forum!
|
|
Re:stm32f4 vs stm32f7 compatibility
« Reply #17 on: 14. September 2017, 10:10:00 »
|
|
Sorry, Danilo had already answered my question.
Thanks a lot.
Markus
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
yo2ldk
Neuling
Offline
Posts: 22
I love SDR & OVI40 !
|
|
Re:stm32f4 vs stm32f7 compatibility
« Reply #18 on: 14. September 2017, 11:33:04 »
|
|
OK, now is clear - thank you all for clarification ! 
I wait for OVI40 , as I see, that will be much over mchf
as performance and development.
BTW is some schematics file /info available or need to wait until is ready?
Have you consider to use a little bit large screen, and maybe for a better audio coder/decoder, at least at 192kHz?
just some idea if is applicable to OVI40.
|
|
Logged
|
Vy 73,
de yo2ldk - Alex
kn05WH
|
|
|
DB4PLE
positron
Urgestein
Offline
Posts: 1278
|
|
Re:stm32f4 vs stm32f7 compatibility
« Reply #19 on: 14. September 2017, 11:36:36 »
|
|
Hi,
1. yes: 3.2" vs. 2.8" to keep the formfactor the same and also to keep the power consumption low)
2. No. However due to the separation of audio and iq codec (we have 2) we may go up to 96khz (this is max for WM9831) at some point.
|
| « Last Edit: 14. September 2017, 11:37:20 by DB4PLE » |
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
yo2ldk
Neuling
Offline
Posts: 22
I love SDR & OVI40 !
|
|
Re:stm32f4 vs stm32f7 compatibility
« Reply #21 on: 14. September 2017, 14:35:49 »
|
|
TY Andreas,
for the schematic; the 3D model i found it earlier.
Under LCD in right is a place for one more push button,
this can be used as memory switch mode, then the others
from left can become M1 to M5 (for CW, RTTY messages fro ex.)
or, maybe you have another good solution.
STM32F7 have so many I/O, so PCB can be a little high or longer,
but I see you keep it the mchf standard; even if OVI40 will be 85%
another transceiver. 
73 de alex
|
|
Logged
|
Vy 73,
de yo2ldk - Alex
kn05WH
|
|
|
|
|
KevinA
Neuling
Offline
Posts: 16
It's English
|
|
Re:stm32f4 vs stm32f7 compatibility
« Reply #23 on: 04. October 2017, 03:15:31 »
|
|
Hi,
1. yes: 3.2" vs. 2.8" to keep the formfactor the same and also to keep the power consumption low)
2. No. However due to the separation of audio and iq codec (we have 2) we may go up to 96khz (this is max for WM9831) at some point.
|
|
Has anyone done the math on sample size/sample rate/ MCU clock?
48Khz sample rate with 16 bit and 180Mhz clock F4xx (current)
96Khz sample rate with 32 bit and 216Mhz clock F7xx
192Khz sample rate with 32 bit and 400Mhz clock H7xx
What is gained with higher sample rates? What is gained with larger sample sizes?
If the MCU did nothing but DSP on the I/Q what could the maximum size and rate be?
Thanks
Kevin K2AAE
|
|
Logged
|
Kevin K2AAE
|
|
|
|
|
KevinA
Neuling
Offline
Posts: 16
It's English
|
|
Re:stm32f4 vs stm32f7 compatibility
« Reply #25 on: 04. October 2017, 17:41:38 »
|
|
Another 'quick' question: What DSP processing is needed for the I/Q codec?
|
|
Logged
|
Kevin K2AAE
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
