This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

DAC8718EVM: Using DXP to evaluate DAC8718 with user input file.

Part Number: DAC8718EVM
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: DAC8718, DXP

Hi,

I am using MMB0+DXP to evaluate DAC8718. All the software-defined waveforms like sine, triangle etc., work as expected.

But, if I try using the waveform file writer, it generates a file with filename "DAC8718_SB_1.000MSPS_12_Mar_19". I get the error as shown in the attached file.

I have two questions:

1. How do I solve this issue? I tried removing SB after DAC8718, it doesn't work. I tried "DAC8718SB_1.000MSPS_12_Mar_19", this doesn't work either.

2. What's the difference between DAC8718SB and DAC8718B2C?

Thanks,

Venkata

  • Venkata,

    Can you share the file you are using?
  • Hi Kevin,

    Please find the file attached.

    I found a workaround, I changed DAC8718_SB to DAC8718 in xml and the filename. That seems to work. But, would like to know if there is a solution when using DAC8718_SB.

    DAC8718_SB_1.000MSPS_12_Mar_19.tiwf.zip

    Thanks,

    Venkata

  • Venkata,

    I think this may have been a lapse in the conception of these tools and the utilization of the filenames in order to obtain information about the files themselves. Having "_SB" in the file name causes this bug to appear when importing file types despite this seemingly being a valid configuration. What you have described is basically exactly what I was going to attempt using your file to see if I could bring up the waveform successfully. In short, I think this workaround is the only workable solution.

    The only difference between the "SB" and "B2C" variants of the XML configuration files are which input data format the DAC is expecting as the device can accepted either straight binary or binary two's complement. As long as your HW configuration and files match up well, there shouldn't be any issue with using the workaround you described to get things running.