Add support for OPX1000 in QM driver

[stavros11]

There are some errors occuring, particularly when using multiple qubits in parallel, which I have not fully pinpointed yet.

So far I have been able to run some resonator spectroscopy (example http://login.qrccluster.com:9000/5qKIEfDTRHqYx64Y2bOt9g==) and punchout but at maximum 4 qubits simultaneously.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 58.33333% with 40 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 70.07%. Comparing base (30db7ea) to head (721e127).
Report is 8 commits behind head on 0.1.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/qibolab/instruments/qm/devices.py	45.94%	20 Missing ⚠️
src/qibolab/instruments/qm/config.py	60.00%	8 Missing ⚠️
src/qibolab/instruments/qm/sweepers.py	0.00%	6 Missing ⚠️
src/qibolab/instruments/qm/ports.py	81.48%	5 Missing ⚠️
src/qibolab/instruments/qm/controller.py	80.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##              0.1    #1045      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   70.27%   70.07%   -0.20%     
==========================================
  Files          64       64              
  Lines        6698     6771      +73     
==========================================
+ Hits         4707     4745      +38     
- Misses       1991     2026      +35     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	70.07% <58.33%> (-0.20%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[stavros11]

Apparently qm-qua 1.2.1a2 (or the firmware we are using) has a bug and the offset is not set properly through the config. In 55993b3 I am fixing this by force-setting the offsets through the program API. This allowed us to find the qubits and proceed with the calibration (see qiboteam/qibolab_platforms_qrc#179 (comment)). The assignment fidelities are not as good as before for this chip, however hopefully this is not related to the instrument and driver.

We could wait a couple of days to potentially have some feedback from people using this for calibration, but in the meantime, we can probably proceed with the reviews and eventually merge and port this to 0.2.

@alecandido if we are going to continue merging stuff on 0.1 branch, maybe we also need to sort the Rust API issue in the CI.

[alecandido]

@alecandido if we are going to continue merging stuff on 0.1 branch, maybe we also need to sort the Rust API issue in the CI.

Yes, removal may also be an option (just to limit the amount of time dedicated).

[alecandido]

Overall, the changes are pretty minimal, so it's not worth to go too much into the details of code optimization for 0.1.
If it worked, that's just fine, and I would postpone further considerations during the analogue 0.2.

I'm assuming you're not introducing any new feature wrt the OPX+, but just make the configs minimally compatible.
E.g. I don't see any option to set output_mode to amplified. But that's fine for the first iteration.

[alecandido]

Btw, it's interesting that the configs specification is incomplete

https://docs.quantum-machines.co/latest/assets/qua_config.html#/paths/~1/get

while you need to fish pieces of the specs from other random places in the docs

https://docs.quantum-machines.co/latest/docs/Introduction/config/#controllers