Hi Miklos,
Thanks for the advised hints!
> However, if you want a proper driver development environment, then do
> not use any of the layers, and write your application that drivers the
> RadioDriverLayer directly. Look into the apps\tests\rfxlink directory,
> and the RadioSniffer and TestTransmit applications as examples.
OK I'll have a look at these test applications and components. Thanks
for pointing them out.
> You do not need the CollisionAvoidanceLayerC, simply use the dummy.
> You do not need the SoftwarewAckLayerC either, but then the
> PacketAcknowledgements interface has to be implemented somehow (in a
> dummy way).
OK I'll use the DummyLayer for the CollisionAvoidance (in a first step).
>> Are your radio driver is Ieee 802.15.4 compliant?
My radio chip is not 802.15.4 compliant but I think I'll use the
Ieee154 packet layout in a first step and will optimize later when
I'll have a working stack. My idea is to have a "802.15.4 compliant"
driver on a "non 802.15.4" chip. I think this is not a problem and I
can handle the Ieee154 layout completely in software.
Regrads,
Romain
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Miklos Maroti
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Romain,
>
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Romain Bornet <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm porting TinyOS to a new CPU architecture and I'm currently working
>> on the radio stack for the radio integrated in my SoC.
>> I took the RF230 from mainline TinyOS repository and the ATMega128
>> RFA1 from http://sourceforge.net/projects/szte-wsn/ as references.
>
> That is a good starting point indeed.
>
>> These two implementations support a full-featured radio stack based on
>> rfxlink with, for example, packet timestamping, software/hardware
>> acks, collision avoidance, ...
>>
>> For my first tests with my radio driver implementation I would like to
>> have the simplest/minimal possible configuration to just test send and
>> receive paths. I saw that many components are optional and can be
>> replaced by DummyLayerC component instances.
>
> True, you can almost replace everything with the DummyLayerC, except
> there are some interfaces that will not be available (e.g.
> PacketAcknowledgements)
>
>> For my first test I will simply use point-to-point transmissions
>> between 2 nodes and won't need any "advanced" features. What is the
>> minimal/simplest configuration/wiring for this scenario ?
>
> You can keep the whole stack as it is, I think it will not interact
> badly with your driver, or just replace stuff with the dummy layer.
> However, if you want a proper driver development environment, then do
> not use any of the layers, and write your application that drivers the
> RadioDriverLayer directly. Look into the apps\tests\rfxlink directory,
> and the RadioSniffer and TestTransmit applications as examples.
>
>
>>
>> For now I could identify following setup for the send datapath:
>> (receive datapath is very similar)
>>
>> ActiveMessageLayerC
>> |
>> AutoResourceAcquireLayerC (optional: can be replaced by a DummyLayer
>> if Ieee154MessageLayerC is not used)
>> |
>> TinyosNetworkLayerC
>> |
>> UniqueLayerC
>> |
>> PacketLinkLayerC (optional: can be replaced by a DummyLayer if
>> reliable packet link is not used)
>> |
>> LowPowerListeningLayerC (optional: can be replaced by a
>> LowPowerListeningDummyC if we don't want to support LPL)
>> |
>> MessageBufferLayerC (mandatory)
>> |
>> CollisionAvoidanceLayerC (random or slotted. Is this a mandatory
>> component or can it be also replaced ???)
>> |
>> SoftwareAckLayerC
>> |
>> CsmaLayerC (can be bypassed with a DummyLayerC)
>> |
>> TrafficMonitorLayerC (can be bypassed with a DummyLayerC if no traffic
>> monitoring is necessary/wished)
>> |
>> RadioXXXDriverLayerC
>>
>> May I replace SoftwareAckLayerC and CollisionAvoidanceLayerC with
>> dummy implementations for the first tests ? It's clear that these
>> components are important in the stack but I would like to start with
>> the "dumbest" possible configuration and introduce new layers one by
>> one later.
>
> You do not need the CollisionAvoidanceLayerC, simply use the dummy.
> You do not need the SoftwarewAckLayerC either, but then the
> PacketAcknowledgements interface has to be implemented somehow (in a
> dummy way). Are your radio driver is Ieee 802.15.4 compliant?
>
> Best,
> Miklos
>
>>
>> Any hint is welcome :-)
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Romain
>>
>
_______________________________________________
Tinyos-help mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help
