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

EVAL-AD9166 Evaluation Board Support #1518

Open
NMU8 opened this issue Nov 12, 2024 · 1 comment
Open

EVAL-AD9166 Evaluation Board Support #1518

NMU8 opened this issue Nov 12, 2024 · 1 comment

Comments

@NMU8
Copy link

NMU8 commented Nov 12, 2024

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

I'm working with the EVAL-AD9166 Evaluation Board and the iWave Zynq Ultrascale+ MPSoC baseboard. Currently, the Analog Devices no-OS library and HDL repository provide support for similar DAC boards, like the AD9172, but there is no direct support for the AD9166. Setting up and configuring the AD9166 requires manual adjustments and lacks the streamlined support available for other DACs. This makes it challenging to efficiently integrate and test the AD9166 in FPGA-based projects using Analog Devices' open-source resources.

Describe the solution you'd like

It would be beneficial if Analog Devices provided direct support for the AD9166 Evaluation Board within the HDL and no-OS repositories. This could include:

HDL modules and constraints compatible with popular FPGAs (such as Zynq Ultrascale+ MPSoCs) and relevant FMC connectors.
Example projects for ZCU102 and similar boards, providing an end-to-end solution for initializing and streaming data to the AD9166.
No-OS drivers for the AD9166 with full register-level control, including example code for DAC initialization and configuration.

Describe alternatives you've considered

I’ve looked into adapting the AD9172 support in the HDL and no-OS repositories for the AD9166, but this approach requires a deep understanding of the differences between the two DACs and manual editing of HDL and driver files. Another alternative would be to use custom HDL code and driver development, but this is time-intensive and could lead to integration issues.

@IuliaCMoldovan
Copy link
Contributor

Hi,

I think we could have it on our todo list, but I need to analyze this a little bit more.
This will take time, so please have patience.
I will keep you updated on the status of this request.

Best regards,
Iulia

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants