artiq_ddb_template does not handle AD9910 & AD9912 Urukuls together on the same Kasli / Kasli SoC

[dimitsev]

Bug Report

1. When at least one AD9910 Urukul and at least one AD9912 Urukul are present together on the same Kasli / Kasli SoC
2. and when device_db.py is generated in the usual manner with artiq_ddb_template,

then self.setattr_device(f"urukul5_cpld"); self.urukul5_cpld.init() will not have the desired effect for the AD9912 Urukuls. (I think, at least.)

Fact is that the following work-around is suggested by knowledgeable people:

• Prepend import urukul_workaround to device_db.py. Create urukul_workaround.py in the same directory as device.py with contents:

from artiq.coredevice import urukul
class CPLD(urukul.CPLD):
    pass

• Find device_db["urukul5_cpld"] for all AD9912 Urukuls in device_db.py and change "module": "artiq.coredevice.urukul" to "module": "urukul_workaround".

I don't want to execute the above steps manually every single time, so I have written short script that executes them automatically.

Suggested bug fix

EITHER make artiq_ddb_template execute the above steps. The relevant lines are:

• artiq/frontend/artiq_ddb_template.py#L270
• artiq/frontend/artiq_ddb_template.py#L540

OR fix whatever needs to be fixed under the hood to let AD9910 Urukuls and AD9912 Urukuls find their CPLD classes correctly.

[Spaqin]

Related #2309 (simpler workaround is to put the dummy CPLD class in device_db itself)

will not have the desired effect for the AD9912 Urukuls. (I think, at least.)

Well, artiq_sinara_tester works fine with both types; what's actually wrong in this case?

[dimitsev]

Well, artiq_sinara_tester works fine with both types; what's actually wrong in this case?

@Spaqin : I only know that Creotech gave us the workaround described above for a crate that contains 5x AD9910 Urukul and 1x AD9912 Urukul. I have not yet tested anything myself.