[TangerineSDR] TangerineSDR part and document numbering

[Scotty Cowling]

Hi Tom,

Well, I guess RFM is the generic term for RF Module. That would apply to 
all of the modules that plug into the M.2 RFM connectors.

There should be only one ICD for RFMs, since the size, connector 
locations and pin outs are the same for TXM, RXM and TRXM.

Do we really want to have separate requirements documents for TXM, RXM 
and TRXM? It seems that one document will do, with variants added as we 
develop modules.

So your spec really is a RFM specification, with two RXMs defined 
(single channel HF RX and dual channel HF RX).

If you think we want to do separate requirements docs for each variant 
of RFM, then TSDR-RXM-REQ will work. Along with TSDR-TXM-REQ and 
TSDR-TRXM-REQ. Then we will probably have to add a suffix to 
differentiate RXMs, since each requirements document will only cover one 
variant.

I think either way works, as long as we stick to only one ICD for RF 
modules that they all have to adhere to. We can always add to the 
requirements document when new use cases arise.

73,
Scotty WA2DFI

On 2019-08-01 14:20, Tom McDermott wrote:
> Hi Scotty - I changed TSDR-RFM-xxx  to  TSDR-RXM-xxx for the receiver.
>
> I wrote "RF module" in the V0.1 receiver spec, but really should have 
> called it the Receiver module
> since we have receiver, transmitter, and transceiver modules.  The 
> receiver documentation only applies
> to the receiver.
>
> Some of the fields in the template would not let me edit. I think they 
> may have been tagged.
> If you are counting on those tags to auto-populate something, then I 
> just broke it big time.
>
> -- Tom, N5EG
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 10:55 AM Scotty Cowling via TangerineSDR 
> <tangerinesdr at lists.tapr.org <mailto:tangerinesdr at lists.tapr.org>> wrote:
>
>     Hi all,
>
>     In order to try to attain some consistency with our document names
>     and
>     part numbers, attached is a proposed numbering scheme.
>
>     Orderable parts end in a number, documents do not contain numbers (at
>     least, until we add future boards that are not compatible with our
>     first
>     iteration of TangerineSDR).
>
>     Tom and I tried to come up a simple scheme that will serve us for the
>     foreseeable future and cover all the possibilities.
>
>     Please comment if you see anything untoward.
>
>     This will mostly apply to the document names and filenames. I will
>     ask
>     each author to update their titles and filenames after everyone has
>     reviewed the numbering scheme.
>
>     At the same time, I would like to try to achieve a common document
>     appearance among all of our documents (we are getting so many). I
>     will
>     outline that in another e-mail.
>
>     73,
>     Scotty WA2DFI
>     -- 
>     TangerineSDR mailing list
>     TangerineSDR at lists.tapr.org <mailto:TangerineSDR at lists.tapr.org>
>     http://lists.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/tangerinesdr_lists.tapr.org
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.tapr.org/pipermail/tangerinesdr_lists.tapr.org/attachments/20190801/2a99689c/attachment.html>