[TangerineSDR] TangerineSDR part and document numbering
tom.n5eg at gmail.com
Thu Aug 1 21:35:40 EDT 2019
Hi Scotty - well, I am concerned the document might become un-writable or
un-readable (maybe both).
It will have to cover: 3 kinds of receivers, a transmitter, a transceiver,
non-PSWS requirements. Each section essentially becomes a matrix of
modules vs. requirements.
A common ICD is perhaps a bit easier, essentially 5 ICD's sequentially
combined into one document.
Each M.2 will be different but similar. Similar in how things are
assigned, but different because the
dual rx will use two-parallel busses of data, the transceiver will also,
but half will be going in the
opposite direction, the single receiver will be NoConnect on half, etc.
There will be multiple mechanical
outlines, (e.g. the transmitter will need a heatsink, the dual will be
I'd like to propose we stick with just the RX Requirements document for now
just for time efficiency.
We can append or create new later after the Dual RX is well defined.
Similarly we can start the ICD with the
dual-receiver and append as we make progress.
-- Tom, N5EG
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 3:28 PM Scotty Cowling <scotty at tonks.com> wrote:
> 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
> 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.
> 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> 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.
>> Scotty WA2DFI
>> TangerineSDR mailing list
>> TangerineSDR at lists.tapr.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the TangerineSDR