Hello, On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Felix Varghese <felixv1...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 3 March 2012 18:40, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbarysh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Summary on all the patchset below. >> >> Prajosh, Felix. Thanks for your work on IEEE 802.15.4 for Linux. Please >> don't find my mails as discouraging or otherwise demoting your work. >> There are some coding standards. There are some ideas behind code. There >> is more than just blindly following standard text letter by letter. > > Firstly, thanks a lot for spending time to review these patches. We > understand that we need put in a lot of work on them, and we are > prepared to do that.
:) > >> First, your mixup of terms PIB and MIB leads to confusion. > > PIB, the way we meant it, stands for PAN Information Base, as defined > in IEEE 802.15.4-2006. It is a collection of attributes, each of which > has an attribute id and a corresponding value. It includes MAC PIB > (stuff like short address, PAN ID, etc.) and PHY PIB (channel, channel > page, etc.). Ah, ok. I'm sorry here. I've last read the standard about a year ago. Maybe I mixed it up with some other standard. I had terms PIB and MIB in my mind. > This is the terminology we tried to follow consistently > in the code. If we are aiming for IEEE compliance and > interoperability, we would need to implement a get and set for each > and every one of these attributes (although indeed the terminology > wouldn't matter!). So, even if these attributes weren't actually got > or set anywhere in the code (which they would be, as an when new > features are implemented), their implementation is a significant step > towards building an proper 802.15.4 implementation. Yes and no. First, do you plan to have standard compatibility on the "procedure" level of things - I mean implementing all procedures as defined by standard? They don't always fit the Linux model. E.g. there are probably better ways to implement passing of scan results to userspace, comparing to the standard text. I'm really not sure that implementing PHY PIB as get/set is a "Goot Thing". Etc. Regarding unused/unimplemented things. There is no point in implementing just the "get/set" operations. They will be the dead code. It might be used in future. And might not. Or they might require a different implementation. Usually there is little point in implementing such "features". I would really prefer to have code that uses those values, rather than just list of values. > The PIB also forms > the backbone over which the rest of the features would fit in. The MAC > primitives, when implemented, will use these attributes heavily. Yes, it is true. But strictly speaking PIB is not the most important part of the standard to implement. It is true that we did not implement GET/SET/RESET commands due to various reasons ranging from problems with designing good interface to PIB. I'm not sure that NetLink is well suited for such task. Could you please consult with cfg80211 subsystem to check how they implemented access to their information base variables? -- With best wishes Dmitry ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ _______________________________________________ Linux-zigbee-devel mailing list Linux-zigbee-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-zigbee-devel
