Skip to content
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

Lmn resampling #273

Draft
wants to merge 19 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Lmn resampling #273

wants to merge 19 commits into from

Conversation

brettviren
Copy link
Member

This PR adds support for:

  • use of resampled or differently sampled FRs (eg at 64ns) in simulation.
  • resampling of ADCs in NF (eg 512ns to 500ns).

Still need to implemente resampling in NF instead of just python
Prior, Digitizer took all untagged traces.  These two should be equivalent in
the context of simulation.

In the, until now nonexistent, case of reading a voltage frame from a FrameFileSink-produced file, the '*' bets (mis)interpreted to be a trace tag instead of being a wild card and this caused Digitizer to not get any traces.

The entire situation with frame and trace tags is a big jumbled and deserves to be straightened out globally.  But, for now, this makes things work and really tags have no place in simulation so should be correct going foward.
- Add artifact mitigation to Resampler via different time-domain padding strategies.

- Add a CLI Jsonnet to run just the Resampler.

- Move from a BATS test to a Snakemake file to run everything as it is starting to get complex.
@brettviren brettviren marked this pull request as ready for review March 24, 2024 00:00
@brettviren
Copy link
Member Author

This replaces the slightly incorrect decimate-then-convolve with proper filtered downsample and linear convolve for FRxER. There is still a very slight unexplained difference between 512ns with 64ns resampled FR, 500ns with 100ns native FR and 512ns to 500ns resample.

@brettviren brettviren marked this pull request as draft March 25, 2024 12:08
@brettviren
Copy link
Member Author

I have one more confusion pop up in my mind w.r.t. the fact that ER is peak-normalized. I make this draft again until I can clarify and maybe make some changes.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant