-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 219
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
invalid(may) LTS correaltion coefficients in sync_long.v #8
Comments
I remember looking at this when I was studying the rx core. |
There might be one explanation. |
What you said is true as the author reduced the size of the cross-validation to 16 IQ samples (i.e. https://openofdm.readthedocs.io/en/latest/sync_long.html#fig-match-size). And it might be the case that I tested the changes (don't remember exactly) at high SNR which hasn't made any significant change. |
Thanks for reporting. Did you ever try low SNR such as by longer distance? Anyway we will fix and test in low SNR. |
I have updated all stuffs accordingly. Issue is closed. |
I have done a test between Thinkpad T420 (Intel wifi card: Intel Corporation Centrino Advanced-N 6205) and zcu102+fmcs2. openwifi as AP, T420 as client. The results shows that original sync_long.v index has better performance clearly. We need to figure out further. But for now, let's use the original index. Original index: New index: Iperf TCP performance of new index: |
according to test: open-sdr/openwifi-hw#8
Hello, How are you doing with openwifi now? Do you still have any issue? The openwifi has been improved a lot during the last .5 year. It supports more boards (high end to low end) and becomes more stable. Would you please tell us your email (if you could also introduce yourself bit, that would be perfect). We might send out some questions to listen for user feed feedback. Thanks. |
In file sync_long.v line 418-421, the original code is
stage_X0 <= cross_corr_buf[1];
stage_X1 <= cross_corr_buf[2];
stage_X2 <= cross_corr_buf[3];
stage_X3 <= cross_corr_buf[4];
I think the code should be fixed with:
stage_X0 <= cross_corr_buf[0];
stage_X1 <= cross_corr_buf[1];
stage_X2 <= cross_corr_buf[2];
stage_X3 <= cross_corr_buf[3];
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: