J Sign Process Syst (2011) 62:173–185

DOI 10.1007/s11265-009-0353-4

Promising Technique of Parameterization For Reconfigurable

Radio, the Common Operators Technique: Fundamentals
and Examples
L. Alaus & J. Palicot & C. Roland & Y. Louët & D. Noguet

Received: 13 October 2008 / Revised: 28 January 2009 / Accepted: 23 February 2009 / Published online: 14 March 2009
# 2009 Springer Science + Business Media, LLC. Manufactured in The United States

Abstract In the field of Software Radio (SWR), parame- Register (R-LFSR), derived from the classical Linear
terization studies have become a very important topic. This Feedback Shift Register (LFSR) structure.
is mainly because parameterization will probably decrease
the size of the software to be downloaded, and also because Keywords Software defined radio . Parameterization .
it will limit the reconfiguration time. In this paper, Reconfigurable . Common operator . Fast Fourier Transform
parameterization is considered as a digital radio design (FFT) . Linear Feedback Shift Register (LFSR)
methodology. Two different techniques, namely common
functions and common operators are considered. In this
paper, the second view is developed and illustrated by two 1 Introduction
examples: the well known Fast Fourier Transform (FFT)
and the proposed Reconfigurable Linear Feedback Shift The term Software Radio (SWR) was first coined around
1990, thanks to the pioneering works of J. Mitola [1] and
W. Tuttlebee [2]. SWR refers to a set of techniques that
L. Alaus (*) : D. Noguet enables the reconfiguration of a communication system
CEA-LETI, Minatec, without the need to change any hardware system element
17 rue des Martyrs,
[2]. One of the benefits of SWR is that it considerably
38054 Grenoble Cedex 9, France
e-mail: laurent.alaus@cea.fr enhances transceiver flexibility by, for instance, offering the
ability to support several air interfaces or configurations.
D. Noguet
e-mail: dominique.noguet@cea.fr Although the objective of a purely software based radio is
critical due to real-time processing and power consumption
J. Palicot : Y. Louët constraints, it can be observed that modern transceivers
SUPELEC,
available on the market are more and more Software Radio
Avenue de la Boulaie CS 47601,
35576 Cesson-Sévigné Cedex, France powered. This can be concluded by considering the
regularly updated surveys from the SDR Forum [3]. Any
J. Palicot
e-mail: yves.louet@supelec.fr reconfiguration of SWR simply corresponds to a change in
their software. The required software does not even need
Y. Louët
e-mail: jacques.palicot@supelec.fr to be stored in the device itself, since it can be down-
loaded, thereby bringing easy maintenance capability to
C. Roland the radio.
Université de Bretagne Sud, UEB,
Parameterization is an important aspect of the SWR
CNRS Lab-STICC,
56321 Lorient, France concept. It consists in identifying all the common aspects of
e-mail: christian.roland@univ-ubs.fr the mobile communication modes and standards which the
174
receiver is intended to handle. In this paper we address
heterogeneous wireless systems such as GSM1, IS952,
PDC3, DECT4 and UMTS5. In addition we consider
wireless LAN6 as well as broadcasting technology like T-
DMB7 and DVB-T8. The main drawback of this profusion
of wireless communication standards is that communicating
devices enclose more and more radios. This explains the
growing interest in multi-mode terminals enabled thanks to
SWR techniques.
In this context, parameterization can be considered as an
optimization process which can help in the design of
reconfigurable equipments. According to the methodology
of parameterization, the common aspects of the different
standards will become one common processing procedure,
which could be installed in the device. This common
procedure could be executed by a simple “call”, thereby
resulting in a gain of both size and time with regards the
amount of code to be downloaded or read in order to modify
the radio behavior. From the design point of view, the
parameterization will optimize the co-design and will proba-
bly reduce the time to market by enabling incremental design.
To perform parameterization, a first technique, the
Common Function (CF) technique, was introduced in [4]
and also as a chapter in [5]. One example of the CF
technique, for UMTS, GSM and PMR9, concerning channel
coding block is given in [4]. In this paper the author
highlights the fact that “parameterization allows communi-
cation systems to be built with flexible components, under
the restrictive assumption that these components belong to
a predefined set of transmission modes”. From this point of
view, the Common Function technique could be seen as
highly dependent of the standards considered.
At the opposite, the proposed common operator tech-
nique, presented in this article, aims to be less standards
dependant. We have already published some studies,
specific to the CO technique. The Fast Fourier Transform
(FFT) developed in [6] was the starting point of the method,
illustrated by two additional CO in [7] and [8]. Further-
more, in [9], a theoretical approach (TA) and an optimiza-
tion process are proposed to identify CO in a multi standard
terminal, viewed as a graph. All this previous work needs
secure foundation and the present article comes up to that
expectation. As a consequence, the purpose of this paper is
1
GSM: Global System for Mobile Communications
2
IS95: Interim Standard 95 (CDMA)
3
PDC: Personal Digital Cellular
4
DECT: Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications
5
UMTS: Universal Mobile Telecommunication System
6
LAN: Local Area Network (WiFi, WiMax, …)
7
T-DMB: Terrestrial — Digital Multimedia Broadcasting
8
DVB-T: Digital Video Broadcasting-Terrestrial
9
PMR: Professional Mobile Radio
J Sign Process Syst (2011) 62:173–185
to bring in mind the basics of the Parameterization and to
lay the foundation of the CO technique. We specify clearly
the keystone of the method, the complete definition and the
rules of design and implementation. Moreover, on the top
of the TA, we introduce the Pragmatic Approach. In the
search of a CO, the Pragmatic Approach is twofold; the
Existing Search (ES) and the Constructive Search (CS). In
the following the Common Operator Technique is illustrat-
ed by the Existing Search approach applied to two COs; the
Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) and a specific Linear
Feedback Shift Registers, the R-LFSR. The Constructive
Search will be instanced by another LFSR operator in [13].
This paper is organized as follow: in the first section, we
discuss the concept of parameterization techniques as a
methodology to design Software Radios. First, we detail the
required definitions and present the state of the art. Next,
the CO technique is introduced and two approaches for
designing CO are discussed, i.e., the Pragmatic and the
Theoretical Approach. Finally, a comparison between CF
and CO is proposed.
Then in a second section of this article, the common
operator technique is applied to two operators. The first
subsection (3.1) describes the FFT operator and gives a few
examples of its application. In the second subsection (3.2)
we propose a specific LFSR common operator called
Reconfigurable Linear Feedback Shift Register (R-LFSR)
and we describe its application to a tri-standard terminal.
2 Fundamentals of the Techniques of Parameterization
2.1 Definition and Existing Solution
2.1.1 Definition
The initial work of J. Mitola [1] and W. Tuttlebee [2]
defined the Software Radio as “a set of techniques that
permit the reconfiguration of a communication system
without the need to change any hardware system element”.
The first way of implementing a SWR was the so called
“Velcro” technique, which consists in instantiating all
required standard implementations and enabling reconfigu-
ration by activating the desired one. Although this approach
meet the flexibility criteria, and is still considered for
analogue stages, more efficient approaches were introduced
to reduce silicon area, design effort and cost, especially for
the digital section. Then, the function sharing among
different standards was proposed and can be considered as
the beginning of the techniques of Parameterization. This
led to the definition of the Common Function Technique. It
was clearly explained by P. F. Jondral in the introduction of
[5]: “It seems natural to ask whether there are construction
principles that are common to all standards and, if so, to
J Sign Process Syst (2011) 62:173–185
Figure 1 Common function
technique.
describe the standards according to these principles”. The
CF Technique could be perfectly illustrated by Fig. 1. For
each Transmitter Data Processing, all the components
dedicated to the same “Functionality” were aggregated in
the same Common Function. Fig. 1 clarifies three CF of
Channel Coding, Interleaving and Modulation. Each Com-
mon Function is depicted as the combination of one
Common and several dedicated slices. The Common part
includes the components required by at least two functions
and each dedicated part is characteristic to the non-related
components of each individual function. The resource
sharing inferred by the CF technique allows the non-
duplication of redundant components and a possible save of
complexity (memory size, downloading speed, reconfigu-
ration speed, computation complexity…)..
From this point and based on the previous definitions,
we suggest that “a parameterization technique” should be a
method that searches for and finds all the commonalities
between several different standards in order to optimize the
resources during the equipment’s implementation and/or the
execution phases.
2.1.2 Examples
This subsection brings up to light two different examples
and audits briefly the contribution of the method.
The first typical example focuses on a: “Generalized
parameterizable modulator” presented in [5]. The
concerned Common Entity is a general modulator. It has
been designed for the GMSK10, QPSK11, π/4QPSK and
dual QPSK modulations for the air interfaces of the
following standards: GSM (FDMA12/TDMA13, GMSK),
IS 136 (DAMPS14) (FDMA/TDMA, π/4QPSK) and UTRA
FDD15 (DS-CDMA16, QPSK).
10
GMSK : Gaussian Minimum Shift Keying
11
QPSK : Quadrature Phase-Shift Keying
12
FDMA : Frequency-division multiple access
13
TDMA : Time-division multiple access
14
DAMPS : Digital American Mobile Phone System
15
FDD : Frequency-Division Duplex
16
DS-CDMA : Direct Sequence Code Division Multiple Access
175
A detailed study of this specific CF displays the cumulative
aspect of the General Modulator. In practical terms, the CF
consists in the juxtaposition of several modulators and some
very specific procedures roughly common. Furthermore, the
parameterization considered is limited to a simple choice
between several paths depending on the standard.
The second example of the parameterization study, for
UMTS, GSM and PMR17, concerning channel coding
aspects is given in [4]. As in the previous example, it is
more a matter of an assembly of boxes than a Common
Function. All the boxes are not used at the same time; their
use depends on the considered standard. As stated by the
author, when a box is not used, the corresponding software
is not used and therefore it is not time- or CPU-consuming.
According to the two Common Functions presented
before, we can conclude on the high standards dependency
aspect of the method. The basic design of the CF consists in
the aggregation of the required components in only one
function with minor sharing. The evolution to new standards
must require the addition of the distinct components of each
function in the associated CF. As a consequence, the CF
should be redefined and redesigned. Finally, we follow the
conclusion of the author of [4] “parameterization (imple-
mented with Common Function) makes it possible to build
communication systems with flexible components, under the
restrictive assumption that these components belong to a
predefined set of transmission modes”. In consequence of its
standards dependency, we describe the Common Function
technique as a Fixed Technique. This drawback is one of
the initial motivations in the definition of the CO technique.
2.2 Proposed Solutions: The Common Operator Technique
2.2.1 Definition
The CO technique follows the principles of the techniques
of parameterization and consists in identifying common
elements based on structural aspects. In reference to the
definition of the pragmatic approach given in 2.2.2.1, the
intrinsic design of the CO is created independently of any
17
PMR : Professional Mobile Radio
176
Figure 2 An example of a
breaking down of several
standards.
standards. In essence, a CO is used to perform operations
without knowing their application and must be defined by a
general equation. In practical terms, we want to design CO
independent of “calling” functions and as a consequence of
typical standards. In contrast to the CF, one CO is not
specific to the implementation of a terminal; we describe
the Common Operator technique as an Open Technique.
Following all these requirements, it is only sensible that
a common operator could be called and re-called by distinct
functions several times all along the terminal. This “reuse”
is an important issue in the design and the implementation
of the operator. One of the objectives is to execute the
common operator in a minimal clock cycle number
(analogy with the well known MAC operator in DSP).
Figure 2 represents the Graphical breakdown of a multi-
standard terminal proposed in a previous work [10]. From
top to bottom, we decrease the granularity of the considered
components up to basic LUT or MAC. The CO consists in
increasing the granularity of the basic elements to address
in a SDR. This operator could be used by as many future
standards as possible.
This operator has to be completely and successfully
checked, optimized and tested. It is expected that the higher
the level of the operator is, the shorter the development time of
new functionalities will be. In this article, we settle on LFSRs
and FFT, presented in 3 and encircled in the graph, Fig. 2,
J Sign Process Syst (2011) 62:173–185
2.2.2 Methodology
In the context of techniques of parameterization, we designed
and proposed two distinct but convergent approaches to
specify the CO: Theoretical and Pragmatic. In this paper, the
CO technique is illustrated by the FFT and the LFSR
Operator, both designed with Pragmatic Approach.
Pragmatic Approach The pragmatic approach is the initial
approach developed to identify or create possible COs. The
approach follows two stages; an Existing Search and a
Constructive Search.
The Existing Search consists in identifying in literature
and in existing works, some operators potentially common.
The main interest is to enlarge the classical operations
available with the operator considered to non-expected
operations and define a new CO.
The Constructive Search is basically the next step in the
design of the CO, following the previous Existing Search. It
consists in the “handmade” building of CO. The approach
tries to transpose like-looking architectures into a “drawn
up” general block and step by step, “merge” them into
Common Operators of Higher Levels.
Theoretical Approach The theoretical approach (TA) con-
sists in moving the classical breaking down of Fig. 2 into a
J Sign Process Syst (2011) 62:173–185
graphical approach where Fig. 2 is viewed as a Graph
problem. In this context, the TA applies an optimization
process in order to find the most relevant CO (or
combination of CO) present in the graph derived from Fig. 2.
The optimization process related to the Theoretical
Approach (TA) is performed by a specific cost function to
minimize. The definition of this cost function is not
addressed in this paper (see [10] for further description).
Most of the systems we considered here are standard-
based. This means, their air interface as well as all their
protocols are completely known. Using this standard descrip-
tion of Fig. 2, we are able to draw some of the possible paths
between the functions so as to perform the required standard.
Using the scheme introduced by TA, with the definition
of Section 2.1, we give another vision of the parameteri-
zation: “the parameterization techniques are the means to
find the optimal path in the tree derived of Fig. 2. Here we
are considering a global optimality. This means that even if
a path is not locally optimal for one function, if it
contributes to the global optimality then we consider it.
The criteria for measuring this optimality are issued from
requirements given in [9] (memory size, downloading
speed, reconfiguration speed, computation complexity…)”.
From the point of view of this definition, three difficult
problems remain: the definition of the graph, the definition
of the cost function and the algorithm optimization. These
issues are out of the scope of this paper.
Finally; both approaches have the same objectives in the
context of Techniques of Parameterization: Find the best set
of CO. The TA selects the best set among several operators,
already in the graph. As a consequence the approach is
circumscribed by the quantity and the relevance of the
operator present in the graph. The PA allows us to identify
and create “possible” CO, without necessarily certifying
their relevance. Actually, the PA improves the graph of the
TA and the TA validates (or not) the CO created by the PA.
As a result, once a CO obtained by the Pragmatic
Approach, it could be integrated in the Theoretical
Approach to find out the best optimization.
Common Function
Standard Layer Function
UMTS Application
Filtering
...
GSM Source coding
IS95 Transport
Channel coding
DECT Network Access
Bluetooth Link
Synchro
...
Physical Mapping
Figure 3 Two techniques for parameterization.
177
2.3 Comparison of the Two Techniques
The Common Function technique was historically the
first one proposed by several articles from Karlsruhe
University (Germany) [5]. According to the previous
definition, both CF and CO techniques converge to the
same objective: a reconfigurable architecture, which
becomes optimal in the sense of the theoretical approach.
That means finding paths in the previous scheme, which
decrease some costs. These two technical methods are
very close. The main difference between them consists in
the common blocks considered. The CF focuses on
similarities between functions whereas the CO looks for
architectural similarities inside the functions. Both CO
and CF techniques could be carried out in a hardware
manner (by instance on FPGA or DSP or even on ASIC)
in order to optimize their occupancy, execution rate,
general use, etc. As presented in Fig. 3, depending on the
CF or CO standpoint we address either the Common
Function (CF) technique or the Common Operator (CO)
technique.
Finally a clear summary of CF and CO can be
suggested:
– The CF Technique consists in seeking an optimized
generic function (the expected common function) like
coding, mapping, etc. which can replace the initial task
present in a predefined set of standards (NB: a CF
should be not considered in this paper as a mathemat-
ical function). It is a fixed technique.
– The CO technique claims to be independent of the
standards by finding the smallest set of highest-level
operators like MAC, FFT, etc., which are used by
the maximum number of functions. It is an open
technique.
A tradeoff could be proposed between CF and CO, with
the following rule: (1) a CF can call (one or several)
functions, (2) a CF can use (one or several) operators, (3) a
CO can not call a function.
Common Operator
Coarse Fine
grain grain
FFT MAC
Cordic LUT
FIR cellular Butterfly
178
X(k) H(k)
N Last point
Decision
μ(k)
Add N zeros
-
+
μ(k) Average
Complex
power
conjugate
signal
Figure 4 UFLMS equalizer.
3 Examples of Common Operators
This section will propose and describe two different
common operators: the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) and
the Reconfigurable Linear Feedback Shift Register (R-
LFSR) uses of the Existing Search approach presented in
2.2.2.1. Actually, we first identified the well known FFT
operator as a fair common operator with a large range of
practical applications. Next, we focused on the general Linear
Feedback Shift Registers architecture and point out that a large
diversity of operations could be executed by a LFSR [12].
There are many ways of designing a LFSR structure. In this
paper, we decided to center on an existing architecture called
R-LFSR [7]. Afterwards, an additional LFSR operator was
designed following the requirement of the Constructive Search;
the Extended Reconfigurable LFSR presented in [13].
3.1 The FFT Operator
Using the scheme of the Pragmatic Approach and more
precisely of the Existing Search, we identified numerous
algorithms, which could be performed by FFT. We have
already presented some work in [6, 8]. In this subsection,
we will show that the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) could
be considered as a basic operator for most of the receiver
functions.
3.1.1 Three Examples of Functions Performed
in the Frequency Domain
In [6], we have already described how it is possible to
perform many receiver functions in the frequency domain
J Sign Process Syst (2011) 62:173–185
using the FFT function. In this subsection, we only keep
three examples of [6].
Channel Estimation and Equalizer A great deal of litera-
ture exists on channel estimation and equalization algo-
rithms. It goes from the classical Frequency Domain (FD)
Least Mean Squares (FLMS) [14], and unconstrained
Frequency Domain Least Mean Squares (UFLMS) [15]
(see Fig. 4) through Constant Modulus Algorithm (CMA)
implementation in the Frequency Domain (FD) [16], Quasi
Newton algorithm in the FD [17] and Decision Feedback
Equalizer (DFE) in the FD [18] towards new Single Input
Multiple Output (SIMO) semi-blind algorithms like those
presented in [19].
Whatever equalizer is used in the receiver (except the
MLSE), a Frequency Domain implementation will be
possible.
Multicarrier (De)modulation Multicarrier modulation and
demodulation are based on the FFT [20, 21]. Indeed, it is a
particular situation of “Channelization” (see following
section). The scheme is the same as in Fig. 6.
Channelization Many different “pragmatic” architectures
have been proposed recently [22, 24]. In the literature, these
architectures are called Software Defined Radio (SDR)
architectures instead of SWR architectures. We can consid-
er that Fig. 5 proposes a general valid vision of SDR
architecture. The analogue part is divided into two parts.
The first one comprises some analogue functions which
could not be performed digitally called Analog Front End
(AFE) then we find the ADC and the second part called
Digital Front End (DFE).
As proposed and described by Tim Hentschel in many
papers and particularly in [22] and in [23], the DFE
comprises the former analogue functions performed in the
digital domain.
As presented in Fig. 5, one of the main functions
implemented by the Digital Front End is the so-called
channelization function. Firstly, we should consider the
main difference between the mobile terminal and the base
station channelization function. In a mobile terminal
currently only one channel of interest has to be selected,
while a base station needs to process many channels in
parallel.
AFE ADC DFE
I/Q down Sample rate
Channelization
conversion conversion
Figure 5 SDR architecture with DFE functions.
J Sign Process Syst (2011) 62:173–185
X(z) N H 0 (z)
z −1
N H1 (z)
z −1
N H 2 (z)
FFT
z −1
N H Ν −1 (z)
Figure 6 Channelization realization with FFT filterbank.
Two approaches are possible. The first is the classical
per channel approach [23, 25]. The second is the filterbank
channelizer, which could be performed, under some
assumptions, with transform operators, particularly with
the FFT [26]. The reader is referred to [22], for a very
interesting comparison between these two approaches. The
filterbank channelizer is presented in Fig. 6 [27].
The main drawback is that the channels should have a
regular distance between the carriers.
3.1.2 Parameterization Examples with the FFT Operator
The implementation of the CO in the frequency domain
using the FFT applied to Fig. 2 removes “unnecessary paths”
and leads to the new graph of Fig. 7. Figure 7 focuses on a
sub-graph of Fig. 2 to clearly present the decrease of path
with a basic example. In this diagram, the use of the CO not
only causes an outstanding decrease of the number of paths
but also eliminates the need for some functions (such as the
FIR function). Like in Fig. 2, only one part of the possible
paths are represented in the scheme of Fig. 7.
Although the FD version is not locally optimal (like in
the short FIR case), taking into account the fact that the
Equalization
FIR
FFT
Butterfly
MAC
Z-1 LUT
Figure 7 Optimal path for the channelization, equalization and OFDM demodulation functions.
179
FFT operator is mandatory for multicarrier modulation, we
Y0 (z) globally optimize its use with this method.
After taking a more detailed look at all these functions, it
becomes very clear that, if they are performed in the
Y1 (z)
Frequency Domain, the FFT used could be very different
from one function to another. For example, for a short FIR,
Y2 (z) or for a GSM channelization function, we need a short FFT
(typically 128 points), whereas for DVB-T demodulation,
the length of the FFT should be 8 K points. Knowing that it
is possible to perform large FFT with a short FFT (see
[28]), thus, the optimal operator will be a short FFT or may
be the basic butterfly.
Y N-1 (z)
3.2 The R-LFSR Operator
Besides the FFT, several architectures called Shift Registers
and Linear Feedback Shift Registers have been identified as
mainly used in literature, standards or existing transceivers.
From this point, we implemented a specific LFSR: the
Reconfigurable Linear Feedback Shift Register [7]
The R-LFSR has been keyed as an interesting common
operator for transceiver functions at the bit level. The
genesis of R-LFSR structures came from the observation
that many operations of several ongoing standards derive
from Linear Feedback Shift Registers or Shift Registers.
These operations mainly concern Pseudo Random Sequen-
ces Generators, Scramblers, Convolutional Coder, Cyclic
Redundancy Check and block channel coding (Extended to
Reed-Solomon codes). The so-considered R-LFSR was
designed to substitute these operations as a common
operator with specific parameterizations. This operator has
been implemented for three standards. As a consequence, it
should be called a large number of times. But in a real
implementation it is not sensible to consider only one
instance of a R-LFSR cell that would be called by the
functions of the standards. Thus is due to data and control
dependency which exist between these functions and
would lead to inefficient buffering and synchronization
overhead. Following the examples of filters banks, the
Multichannel OFDM
Equalization Multichannel OFDM
channel Filter
channel bank
FIR
FFT CIC
FFT
Butterfly Butterfly
Cordic
MAC
MAC
LUT Z-1 LUT
180 J Sign Process Syst (2011) 62:173–185

Figure 8 R-LFSR structure.

problem has been solved by implementing a bank of The R-LFSR is the juxtaposition of a smaller complexity
Common Operators. operator called “E” Operator, whose equation is: S1 ¼
S0 þ a:A þ b:B
3.2.1 Three Examples of R-LFSR Using To fully understand the constitution of the R-LFSR, the
architecture could be seen as the extension of an Infinite
R-LFSR Architecture In the search of Common Operators, Impulse Response Filter developed in [29] or as the
we identify the Shift Registers (SR) as common basic concatenation of a Finite Impulse Response Filter and a
elements. Due to some functional limitations of the Galois LFSR [12], as seen in Fig. 8.
classical LFSR with regards to non-recursive operations
[12], we round up and theorize its architecture into the R-LFSR and Pseudo Random Sequences A pseudo-random
proposed R-LFSR. The equation and the transfer function number generator is an algorithm which generates a
of such a structure are (when N is the number of register): sequence of numbers that approximate the properties of
X
N X
N random numbers [12]. The Fibonacci LFSR [30] is the
yn ¼ bNk : xnk  aN k :ynk ð1Þ classical technique to generate pseudo-random variables.
0 1 Examples of scramblers are given in the ongoing standards
P
N
[31–34]. A Galois and a Fibonacci LFSR could generate
bN k : zk
H ð zÞ ¼ 0
ð2Þ the same sequences. A specific parameterization of coef-
P
N ficients and a fitted seed give the same output as explained
1þ aN k : zk
1 in [12].

Figure 9 R-LFSR structure and

PN sequences generator.
J Sign Process Syst (2011) 62:173–185
Figure 10 R-LFSR structure
and NSC coder.
The R-LFSR includes a Galois structure and with the
adequate seed, it can play the part of a pseudo random
sequence generator and in consequence of a scrambler
(Fig. 9).
R-LFSR and Convolutional Encoder In telecommunication,
a convolutional code is an error-correcting code in which
each m-bit information symbol is transformed into an n-bit
symbol, where m/n is the code rate (n≥m) [35]. The
convolutional coder can be divided into two main catego-
ries: the Non Systematic Coder (NSC) or the Recursive
Systematic Coder (RSC).
A NSC is represented by a single Linear Shift
Register and each output code depends on a generator
polynomial whose equation could be seen as the equation
of a Finite-Impulse Response (FIR) Filter. A NSC is
not a LFSR based operator. However, using the FIR
structure of the R-LFSR, it can be implemented with the
adequate parameterization of feed-forwards coefficients
(Fig. 10).
A RSC is a convolutional coder, which uses a Linear
Feedback Shift Register and each output code is repre-
sented by the equation of an Infinite Impulse Response
(IIR) Filter. As mentioned above, the R-LFSR “is” a
transpose form IIR and can easily carry out each output of
a RSC.
Figure 11 CRC 8 calculation with R-LFSR (polynomial generator: 1+D2 +D3 +D4 +D8).
181
R-LFSR and CRC Cyclic redundancy check coding is an
error-control coding technique for detecting errors that
occur when a message is transmitted.
The most critical point in the CRC process is the
calculus of the remainder (coding) and of the syndrome
(decoding). Both are performed by a binary division.
This division can be calculated using a circuit similar to
the one of the R-LFSR [36]. The parameters ai and bi have
just to be parameterized in accordance with the CRC
calculation (Fig. 11).
3.2.2 The R-LFSR Hardware Implementation: R-LFSR4/8
Operators
Introduction The common operator technique is a promis-
ing practical method. Next we prove with a case in point,
the viability of the method in a practical implementation. To
test the relevance of the common operator technique, we
focus on ongoing OFDM based air interfaces and narrows
down the standards to address to the IEEE 802.11 g, IEEE
802.16-2005 and 3GPP LTE [31–34]. These standards use
functions that can be derived as Linear Feedback Shift
Register operations.
This section claims to define a new common operator to
parameterize a tri-standard transceiver. Previously, we
presented the R-LFSR architecture but a common operator
182
Figure 12 Resources allocation
of optimized R-FLSR structure.
should be specified with a finite number of registers. As a
result, we plan out two dissimilar operators of size 4 and 8,
in accordance with the minimal and the most restated
structures to address. These operators named ‘R-LFSR4’
and ‘R-LFSR8’ incorporate 4 and 8 “E” Operators and are
built such as they can be used independently or “juxta-
posed” to form a more longer “United” R-LFSR structure.
R-LFSR Operators Implementation We identify 24 LFSR-
based or SR-based structures present in the standard to
address: scramblers, convolutional coders, CRC or
assimilated.
We developed an “Optimized R-LFSR structure” based
on the networking either of R-LFSR4 or of R-LFSR8.
Figure 12 represents this parameterizable network and the
possible allocation of operator with regards to the oper-
ations required. This structure can execute in turn all the
modes of the three standards to address. In this section,
evaluations of performance are defined by calculating the
number of Logic Cells required for each architecture. All
Figure 13 Optimized R-LFSR
structure.
J Sign Process Syst (2011) 62:173–185
implementations are realized on an ALTERA/Cyclone II
target using Quartus synthesis tools
The results of Fig. 13 are given with regards to the
Velcro method. In these first implementations, whatever the
R-LFSR structure applied, we obtain a gain about 50% with
regard to logic cells comparison.
To give a full evaluation of R-LFSR architectures, we
must let the reader know that whatever the structure
applied, scheduling of function mapping is not raised in
this paper.
The specific LFSR implementation presented in the
article replaces exactly all the structures to execute for each
standard. Once, the parameterization applied, the R-LFSR
architecture becomes the exact replica of ALL the struc-
tures to replace for the selected standard, without the need
of extra mappings and scheduling considerations.
All sets of binary parameters dedicated to a specific
architecture to replace are pre-defined in the implementa-
tion. The parameterization consists in ‘downloading’ these
coefficients, i.e. ‘switch on/off’ coefficients.
J Sign Process Syst (2011) 62:173–185
The R-LFSR is consequently a good structure in a
parameterization method. In the case study considered, R-
LFSR8 is the most relevant specific operator. The proposed
operators give not only a benefit of space but also a good
flexibility to get prepared for upcoming evolutions.
4 Conclusion
This paper defines the techniques of parameterization,
analyzes their objectives and their requirements to propose
the new Common Operator technique. We conclude (1) that
the CO is an alternative method to overcome the high
standards dependency of the Common Function Technique,
(2) that the CO technique is, in essence, a global
optimization technique and accounts for a promising line
of research in the factoring of a whole SDR.
The second part concerns the two operators identified:
FFT and R-LFSR. We show, in this paper, that FFT and
LFSR operators can replace a wide range of structures
for many operations to execute. Different functionalities
such as equalization and multi channel modulations come
down to a FFT process. Moreover, general PN sequen-
ces, scrambling, convolutional coding and CRC are
specific implementations of the general equation of the
LFSR. In addition, the next generation of wireless
systems and modulation (BFDM [37], MC-CDMA
[38]), use all the schemes. As a consequence, FFT and
LFSR appear as relevant high level operators for upcom-
ing SDR terminals.
We conclude that FFT and LFSR are good candidates for
becoming basic common operators for almost all the
transceiver’s functions in the context of parameterized
Software Radio. The next step is to confirm this conclusion
by using a SWR receiver implementation to quantify the
gain offered by these operators. Further studies will concern
a possible merge of them.
References
1. Mitola, J. (1995). The software radio architecture. IEEE Commu-
nications Magazine, 33, 26–38. doi:10.1109/35.393001.
2. Tuttlebee, W. (1995). Evolution of radio systems into the 21st
century. Bath, United-Kingdom: IEEE Radio receivers and
associated systems.
3. Forum, S. D.R. Software Defined Radio Forum, http://www.
sdrforum.org/.
4. Rhiemeier, A. (2002). Benefits and limits of parameterized
channel coding for software radio. 2nd Karlsruhe Workshop on
Software Radios. Germany.
5. Jondral, F. (2002). Parameterization-a technique for SDR Imple-
mentation. In W. Tuttlebee (ed.), Software Defined Radio
Enabling Technologies (pp. 233–256) Wiley
6. Palicot, J., & Roland, C. (2003). FFT: A basic function for a
reconfigurable receiver. Papeete: ICT’ 2003.
183
7. Alaus, L., Noguet, D., & Palicot, J. (2008). A reconfigurable
linear feedback shift register for software defined radio terminal.
Santorin: ISWPC2008.
8. Ghouwayel, A., Louët, Y., & Palicot, J. (2006). A reconfigurable
butterfly architecture for fourier and fermat transforms. Karls-
ruhe: WSR’06.
9. Moy, C., Palicot, J., Rodriguez, V., & Giri, D. (2006). Optimal
determination of common operators for multi-standards software-
defined radio. Karlsruhe, Germany: WSR’06.
10. Rodriguez, V., Moy, C., & Palicot, J. (2007). Install or invoke?:
The optimal tradeoff between performance and cost in the design
of multi-standard reconfigurable radios. In Wiley InterScience.
Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing Journal, 7(9),
1143–1156. doi:10.1002/wcm.487.
11. Tessier, R., & Burleston, W. (2001). Reconfigurable computing
for digital signal processing: a survey. Journal of VLSI Signal
Processing, 28, 7–27. doi:10.1023/A:1008155020711.
12. Klapper, A., & Goresky, M. (2002). Fibonacci and Galois
representations of feedback-with-carry shift registers. IEEE Trans-
actions on Information Theory, 48(11), 2826–2836.
13. Alaus, L., Palicot, J., & Noguet, D. (2008). Extended reconfig-
urable linear feedback shift register operators for SDR. Bologna:
ISSSTA’08.
14. Ferrara, E., Cowan, C., Grant, P. (1995). Frequency domain
adaptive filtering. Prentice-Hall.
15. Mansour, D., & Gray, A. (1982). Unconstrained frequency-
domain adaptive filter. IEEE Transactions on Acoustic, Speech
and Signal Processing, 30(5), 726–734.
16. Schirtzinger, T., Li, X., & Jenkins, W. (1995). A comparison of
three algorithms for blind equalization based on the constant
modulus error criterion. New York: ICASSP’95.
17. Berberidis, K., Palicot, J. (1995). A block Quasi-Newton Algo-
rithm implemented in the frequency domain. EUSIPCO’96,
Trieste, September.
18. Berberidis, K., Palicot, J.: (1995). A frequency domain decision
feedback equalizer for multipath echo cancellation. Globecom’95,
Singapore.
19. Berberidis, K., Marava, A., Karaivazoglou, P., & Palicot, J.
(2001). Robust and Fast Converging decision feedback equalizer
based on a new adaptive semi blind estimation algorithm. San
Antonio: Globecom’01.
20. Alard, M., Lassalle, R. (1987). Principles of modulation and
channel coding for digital broadcasting for mobile receivers. EBU
Review, Technical N 224.
21. Akansu, A., Duhamel, P., Lin, X., & Courville, M. (1998).
Orthogonal transmultiplexers in communications: a review. IEE
Transactions on Signal Processing, 46(4), 979–995.
22. Hentschel, T. (2002). Channelization for software defined
base-stations. Annals of Telecommunications, 57(5), 386–
420.
23. Hentschel, T., Fettweis, G., & Bronzel, M. (1998). Channelization
and sample rate adaptation in software radio terminals. Rhodes:
ACTS Mobile Communications Summit.
24. Garcia, J., Gubolivic, Z., Diaz, F., Alonso, J., Macleod, J., Beach, M.
(2000). TRUST approach to software defined radio: RF consid-
erations. Summit’00, Galway, Ireland.
25. Tuttlbee, W. (2001). Software defined radio: Enabling technology.
Wiley.
26. Zangi, K., & Koilpillai, D. (1999). Software radio issues in
cellular base stations. IEEE Journal On Selected Areas in
Communications, 17(4), 561–573. doi:10.1109/49.761036.
27. Crochiere, R., Rabiner, L. (1983). Multirate digital signal
processing. Prentice-Hall.
28. Bailly, B., Bidet, E., Cardin, J., Djoko Kouam, M., Joanblanq, C., &
Palicot, J. (1995). FDF a 512 FIR filter using a mixed temporal-
frequential approach. Santa Clara: CICC’95.
184 J Sign Process Syst (2011) 62:173–185

29. Tseng, B. (1989). Direct realization of the transpose structure for

FIR and IIR Filters. Signals, Systems and Computers Twenty-
Third Asilomar Conference.
30. Proakis, J. (2007). Digital communications, McGraw-Hill Higher
Education.
31. ARIB STD-T63-25.212 V4.5.0, Multiplexing and channel coding,
(FDD), (Release 4).
32. IEEE Std 802.11b-1999/Cor 1-2001
33. IEEE Std 802.11g-2003
34. IEEE Std 802.16 - Part 16
35. Leveiller, S. (2004). Quelques Algorithmes de Cryptanalyse du
Registre Filtré. Thesis Report, Ecole Nationale Supérieure des
Télécommunications.
36. Kitsos, P., Sklavos, N., Zewas, N., Koufopavlou, O. (2001). A
reconfigurable linear feedback shift register (LFSR) for the
bluethooth System. University of Patras.
37. Siclet, C., Siohan, P., & Pinchon, D. (2002). Oversampled
orthogonal and biorthogonal multicarrier modulations with Dr. Jacques Palicot received, in 1983, his PhD degree in Signal
perfect reconstruction. Santorini: DSP ’00. Processing from the University of Rennes. Since 1988, he has been
38. Helard, M., Le Gouable, R., Helard, J., & Baudais, J. (2001). involved in studies about equalization techniques applied to digital
Multicarrier CDMA techniques for future wideband wireless transmissions and new analog TV systems. Since 1991 he has been
networks. Annals of Telecommunications, 56(5), 260–274. involved mainly in studies concerning the digital communications
area and automatic measurements techniques. He has taken an active
part in various international bodies EBU, CCIR, and within RACE
and ACTS projects. He has published various scientific articles
notably on equalization techniques, echo cancellation, hierarchical
modulations and Software Radio techniques. He is currently
involved in adaptive Signal Processing and in new techniques as
Software Radio and Cognitive radio. From November 2001 to
September 2003 he had a temporary position with INRIA/IRISA in
Rennes. Since October 2003 he is with Supélec in Rennes where he
leads the SCEE department

Laurent Alaus was a student at the “Ecole Supérieure de Chimie,

Physique et Electronique de Lyon” (ESCPE Lyon), where from he
received the Diploma of Engineer in Telecommunications and
Electronical Engineering in 2006. The same years, he obtained a
Master’s Degree (Former Diploma of Advanced Studies) in Tele-
communications of the National Institute of Applied Sciences (INSA).
He dedicated his research of Master to forward-looking Signal
Detection Methods in Software Defined Radio (SDR) Architectures.
Since the first term of 2007, as a Phd student at CEA-LETI, Laurent
Alaus carries through a thesis on the Architecture of SDR Transceivers
related to Cognitive Radios in collaboration with the Signal
Communication Embedded Electronics (aSCEE), lab of the “École Dr. Christian Roland received his Ph.D. degree in physical systems
Supérieure d’Électricité” (SUPELEC). and metrology from the Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers
J Sign Process Syst (2011) 62:173–185
of Paris in 2001. Over the last 10 years he has worked in the field of
radio communications. Since September 2002 he has been with
LESTER, Lorient, France.
Dr. Yves Louët received his Ph.D. degree in Digital Communica-
tions in 2000 from Rennes University, France. He has been with
SIRADEL from 2000 to 2002 where he was working as a Research
Engineer on channel modelling for cell planning. He is now
Associate Professor in SUPELEC since 2002 and his research
activities concern PAPR analysis and PAPR mitigation methods in
any contexts (OFDM, MIMO-OFDM, software radio, etc.). Yves
LOUËT has already organized special sessions in ISSPIT 06
(“Peak to Average Power Ratio of a Multiplex of Modulated
Carriers”, Vancouver, Canada), EW 07 (“PAPR mitigation in
multicarrier systems” Paris, France) and URSI 08 (“Signal
Processing advances for Software Radio”, Chicago, USA). Yves
LOUËT is Member of the IEEE and Member of the French
Engineering Society (SEE).
185
Dr. Dominique Noguet received his Diploma of Engineer of the
National Institute of Applied Sciences (INSA) in electrical engi-
neering in 1992, an MSc in microelectronics of the University of
Strasbourg in 1994. He received his PhD of Polytechnic National
Institute Grenoble (INPG) in microelectronics with honors in 1998.
He joined the LETI ASIC design team and has worked in the field of
specific architecture for telecommunications from 1998 to 2001. He
then joined the telecommunication laboratory where he coordinated
the RNRT PETRUS project from 2001 to 2003. From 2002 to 2004
he was involved in the FP5 IST-STRIKE project that he also
coordinated. He lead radio design activities in Magnet and Magnet
Beyond (WP5). He was the coordinator of the ORACLE project on
opportunistic radio and leads flexible radio activities (WPRC) within
the NoE NEWCOM++.
He received a best paper award and the best PhD award from
INPG. He authored or co-authored about 30 papers in peer reviewed
journals and conferences. He is currently the head of “digital
architectures and validation platforms” ASP laboratory at LETI,
where he also leads Cognitive Radio Activities.