FHM Calibration Resolution


Would it be possible to elaborate on what setting bit 23 of the table in UG1295 does in the ARM firmware? Although it does not appear to be documented in the user guide, from reading on the forums and the wiki I understand that it initiates FHM calibrations.

What I am looking to understand better is:

  1. What calibrations are performed during FHM calibrations?
    1. Are they the same calibrations that are run in normal mode, but just in a batch mode per-frequency?
    2. If so, are they dependent on the other bits in the calibration bit mask?
    3. For example, if you want RX_PHASE_CORRECTION (bit 15) to happen during FHM calibration, do you need to set that bit in addition to bit 23 prior to calibrating, or is setting bit 15 unnecessary for FHM mode?
  2. Is there a frequency resolution (number of calibration points) that FHM calibrations are performed at, regardless of the fhmMinHz and fhmMaxHz values from UG1295 Table 47?
    1. For example, if fast frequency hopping is needed from 1-5 GHz, if the FHM bounds were set to the full range, would the frequency resolution of the calibration be the same as if a subset of the range, such as 1-2 GHz were used?
    2. The reason I'm interested in this is I have an application that may require fast hopping over a limited bandwidth, with allowable reconfiguration gaps between bandwidth ranges, and I'm trying to figure out if there is any reason to ever set the FHM bounds smaller than the total frequency range of the RF path



Parents Reply
  • 0
    •  Analog Employees 
    on Mar 28, 2020 3:38 AM in reply to ahelak
    If it's possible, or if there is something with the ADRV9009 calibrations that would prevent this? 
    1. (since a wideband transceiver is much more complex than an ADF5355 synthesizer) 

    We don't have this option to store and recall calibration data by the user.

     If this type of load and readback approach is feasible, if it would be possible to add to a roadmap, even the implementation was months from now?

    We don't have any plans/roadmap to add this feature in the future.

    We have verified even with a limited frequency  point calibration we could achieve the required init calibration performance,

    Could you please let us know more about your requirements and whats is the limitation with the current method of FHM implementation?