On Feb 6, 2008, at 2:10 PM, Matt Welsh wrote:
While I like this idea, are we going through a TEP vetting process before adding new calls in the radio stack interface? I could think of a lot of things that one might want to add to the CC2420 radio stack but I thought the idea of the TEP process was to air these ideas through feature extension proposals before just adding things when they seem like a good idea. Then again maybe we need to draw a distinction between "public" interfaces and "private" ones; I suppose one could consider the internals of the CC2420 stack to be "private" -- that is until any upper level code starts relying on the existence of this interface and makes it impossible to port to other radio stacks.
Matt is correct; it would be problematic to add CC2420-specific event handlers to multihop (HIL) protocols. One exception is MultihopLQI, which is CC2420-specific.
If this event is going to become part of an HIL, then it should probably make its way into an HIL interface, e.g., one of those covered by TEP 105. It would be worthwhile to discuss -- in this case, probably cursorily, as if it isn't, neither is LPL -- its ability to be hardware independent.
Phil _______________________________________________ Tinyos-help mailing list [email protected] https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help
