2018 New Generation of CAS (NGCAS) 2018
DOI: 10.1109/ngcas.2018.8572253
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Software Defined Radio Transceiver Based on Dynamic Partial Reconfiguration

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For instance, researchers in [24] discuss their approach to an SDR design, based on the Analog Devices FMCOMMS3, ZedBoard / ZC706, and MathWorks and Xilinx software tools. Other studies have investigated the potential of dynamic partial reconfiguration techniques for implementing flexible SDRs [25].…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For instance, researchers in [24] discuss their approach to an SDR design, based on the Analog Devices FMCOMMS3, ZedBoard / ZC706, and MathWorks and Xilinx software tools. Other studies have investigated the potential of dynamic partial reconfiguration techniques for implementing flexible SDRs [25].…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Dynamic reconfiguration and Dynamic Partial Reconfiguration (DPR) is rapidly growing in popularity as it enables FPGA designs to be changed at run-time to better meet changing systems demands [25,11]. The use of DPR is rapidly gaining popularity over a number of sectors including: fault recovery [5], memory controllers [36], real-time signal processing [12], software defined radio [35,18,17], cognitive radio [39], bandwidth reduction [30], video filters [20], and RADAR signal processing [41] to name a few.…”
Section: Dynamic Partial Reconfigurationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, in spite of the fact that DPR meets SDR requirements with a better performance in terms of power consumption and resources [8], it is not included in fast prototyping MBD commercial flows. This enforces developers to combine these technologies manually, which is translated in an increased complexity, cost and iteration time for embedded tests.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%