On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbarysh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 04/03/12 23:19, Prajosh Premdas wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:31 AM, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov >> <dbarysh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> 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. >>> >> We may not or will not implement the complete 802.15.4 standard. We >> need to implement the basic functions like association, >> disassociation, all scans, direct and indirect data-tx, rx and beacon. > > Assoc is kind of implemented (minor deviation from standard due to > missing pending rx/tx). Disassoc is implemented. Data RX/TX are > implemented but without "data pending" queues on coordinator. Beacons > are also supported (kind of). > >> >> GTS is some thing which we plan to leave out. but things like Beacon >> enabled network with indirect data comm is good to have. Once we >> implement these then we got to make sure they are interop with other >> golden nodes. > > GTS were just an example of a feature that was present in your code, but > is not really to be seen in the near future. > >> Then we can have interested people can implement things >> like 6lowpan, zigbee or RF4CE over this. But if we are not >> inter-operate our stack cant be used by any body > > 6lowpan is already implemented and present in recent kernels. > Zigbee/ZigBee RF4CE are to be implemented as userspace protocols > due to ZigBee standard licensing terms. > >> >> Can we fix up some IRC chat accounts as mentioned in previous mails, >> with you guys so that we can further discuss the design to the bottom. >> Things like code flow etc > > Sending a separate mail on the list.
Thanks and perfect, We will sort out the features to be implemented > > -- > With best wishes > Dmitry > -- Regards, Prajosh Premdas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
