<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Hi Tom,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
There should be only one ICD for RFMs, since the size, connector
locations and pin outs are the same for TXM, RXM and TRXM. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
So your spec really is a RFM specification, with two RXMs defined
(single channel HF RX and dual channel HF RX).<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
73,<br>
Scotty WA2DFI<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2019-08-01 14:20, Tom McDermott
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CACO3nRScaY92R80pEWL_KU89nhZNkiedyeKZQY44MG78KqwWfA@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Hi Scotty - I changed TSDR-RFM-xxx to TSDR-RXM-xxx for
the receiver.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I wrote "RF module" in the V0.1 receiver spec, but really
should have called it the Receiver module</div>
<div>since we have receiver, transmitter, and transceiver
modules. The receiver documentation only applies</div>
<div>to the receiver. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Some of the fields in the template would not let me edit.
I think they may have been tagged.</div>
<div>If you are counting on those tags to auto-populate
something, then I just broke it big time.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-- Tom, N5EG</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div class="gmail_attr" dir="ltr">On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 10:55
AM Scotty Cowling via TangerineSDR <<a
href="mailto:tangerinesdr@lists.tapr.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">tangerinesdr@lists.tapr.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid">Hi
all,<br>
<br>
In order to try to attain some consistency with our document
names and <br>
part numbers, attached is a proposed numbering scheme.<br>
<br>
Orderable parts end in a number, documents do not contain
numbers (at <br>
least, until we add future boards that are not compatible with
our first <br>
iteration of TangerineSDR).<br>
<br>
Tom and I tried to come up a simple scheme that will serve us
for the <br>
foreseeable future and cover all the possibilities.<br>
<br>
Please comment if you see anything untoward.<br>
<br>
This will mostly apply to the document names and filenames. I
will ask <br>
each author to update their titles and filenames after
everyone has <br>
reviewed the numbering scheme.<br>
<br>
At the same time, I would like to try to achieve a common
document <br>
appearance among all of our documents (we are getting so
many). I will <br>
outline that in another e-mail.<br>
<br>
73,<br>
Scotty WA2DFI<br>
-- <br>
TangerineSDR mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:TangerineSDR@lists.tapr.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">TangerineSDR@lists.tapr.org</a><br>
<a
href="http://lists.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/tangerinesdr_lists.tapr.org"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/tangerinesdr_lists.tapr.org</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>