Closed bdorney closed 7 years ago
We already have some examples to show you how we have been testing this. Lets meet and discuss the test script Evaldas and I have been using. Some of this work has also been done for you, so wait until we merge the C interface part first.
Great, I'd like to take a look. I think we should also meet to discuss how we scale up what we are doing this week? e.g. what is the connection between these RPC Modules we've been working, cmsgemos/gempython
, and xhal
. Maybe @jsturdy could also join us?
I'm going to close this pull request since we need more then just adding functions to rwreg.cpp and also bc the raised topic should be discussed in the vfatqc repo. @dorney, please create a new issue there. Also you can create a github project where we can discuss required changes in friend repositories.
Description
Adding functionality for new CTP7 RPC modules for VFAT3 functionality.
@evka85, @mexanick, @jsturdy, @cbravo135
Types of changes
Motivation and Context
New CTP7 RPC modules have been added in: https://github.com/cms-gem-daq-project/ctp7_modules/pull/2/
Right now I've tried to add the following new functions to
src/common/rpc_standalone_client/rwreg.cpp
:vfatSyncCheck(...)
,configureVFAT3s(...)
,configureTTC(...)
, andscanDAC(...)
However I had a couple of questions about this implementation:
rwreg.cpp
into multiple files?configureVFATs(...)
vs.configureVFAT3s(...)
orconfigureTTC(...)
vs.getmonTTCmain(...)
. It seems since thewisc::RPCMsg
object should be a specific RPC module should we keep separate methods as I have done here, or have a single method, e.g.configureVFATs
which correctly chooses the rightwisc::RPCMsg
object? If so on what basis? A flag? Or the CTP7 firmware version (I guess preferred?)setup.sh
doesn't seem to set the computing environment such that this can be compiled. Could I get some advice on this @mexanick?Finally, what is the way to move forward to use this functionality in our scan routines? Maybe this is a more appropriate discussion in
vfatqc-python-scripts
; but for the case of ultraThreshold.py I would envision changing lines 91-111 to something like:The final goal being the hardware version is transparent to the user and keeping the output
TTree
structure identical so no changes togem-plotting-tools
are needed so analysis is immediate.How Has This Been Tested?
Has not yet been tested. Have a couple of questions.
Screenshots (if appropriate):
Checklist: