On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Shalabh Jain <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello, > > I am a student at Univ. of Maryland. I wanted to implement some crypto > algorithms on the constrained sensor environment to obtain some performance > benchmarks. I have been looking at options of different motes to purchase > and the corresponding development environments and I am confused with some > tradeoffs. It would be very helpful if the community can provide some > insight based on the your experience. > > the msp430-int branch of tp-freeforall ( git://github.com/tp-freeforall/prod.git, https://github.com/tp-freeforall/prod) has support for the x1, x2, and x5 families of the msp430. (x1: msp430f1611 (telosb), x2: msp430f2618 (z1), and x5 (msp430f5438a (mm5s), and cc430f5137 (surf)). After tinyos 2.1.2 has been cut and released, I will be tagging the tinyprod work and the msp430-int branch will be integrated into the mainline of the main tinyprod tree (https://github.com/tinyprod/prod). For now you should use the tp-freeforall sources. That is where the main integration is happening for the msp430-int work. > I would like to restrict myself to the MSP430 architecture. I narrowed my > choices down to the following motes/dev kits, > - Telos B by Memsic > - CC430 wireless development tool from TI > - MSP430F5438 experimenter board by TI > - Open to any suggestions of motes/boards > > The reason I am slightly inclined towards the boards is because they have > better specs in terms of RAM and flash. I will need that for the > algorithms. However, the development environment is a bit of a concern. > Peter Bigot is actively working on adding decent msp430 support to modern gcc toolchains. Packaging for these toolchains can be found at http://tinyprod.net/repos/debian/. Follow the instructions. I and others have been actively using these toolchains with few problems. You should start with the 4.6.3 toolchain (4.5.3 is being deprecated, but I haven't gotten around to it yet). I am actively testing 4.7 toolchains. > TinyOS seems to be ‘the’ choice of the academic community. However, I am > not sure of the ports of the TinyOS for the dev boards. TinyProd (* > https://github.com/tp-freeforall/prod*<https://github.com/tp-freeforall/prod>) > seems to support the chip MSP43F5438A which is on the board. > There is chip support and there is platform support. These two things are different. TinyProd tracks and is downstream from the main development trunk for TinyOS (http://code.google.com/p/tinyos-main/source/checkout). Actually, TinyProd is using GIT and tracks the GIT mirror of the SVN trunk at HINRG. TinyProd actively is tracking the upstream tinyos development via the hinrg git mirror. The svn development trunk (proto 2.1.2) has support for the x2 family (z1). TinyProd has cleaned up the x2 support and fixed a number of problems that I've noticed. TinyProd also has support for the x5 processors (msp430f5138a and cc430f5137 and similar). I've also implemented a simple platform (mm5s) that uses the msp430f5438a processor. The mm5s platform works fine on the msp430f5438 experimenter board. I am actively using this to prototype work I'm doing for a newer mote we are developing. At some point I'll push the mm5s support out to gh:tp-freeforall/prod(msp430-int). There is also support for the surf platform. This was the original platform that Peter Bigot developed for People Power and uses the cc430f5137. It isn't really an active platform and not under active development. So if you go with the cc430 wireless dev board you will have to make changes. > However, the platforms mentioned are MM5 and MoteIST). I would like to > know if this would work for the dev board. I am not a hardware expert and > was having trouble following the forums in regard to the differences. > Perhaps somebody could help clarify this for me > > Secondly, if I was to use the TI CCS for the programming the boards, how > much overhead would this have as compared to the TinyOS environment? > Don't know. I haven't heard of anyone using CCS. CCS is a development environment, TinyOS is a set of source resources. So comparing them is meaningless. You will probably have to do a significant amount of work to get TinyOS to compile in the CCS environment. If you do this, and it is reasonably clean, I'd be happy to add it to TinyProd. > Does anybody have any metrics for this? Also, a lot of crypto primitives > are available as C implementations in the open source domain. Would these > require a lot of changes to be implemented in CCS? > You should be able to fairly easily port C snippets to TinyOS. eric > > I would appreciate any help with this. > > Thank you > > Regards > Shalabh > > _______________________________________________ > Tinyos-help mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help > -- Eric B. Decker Senior (over 50 :-) Researcher
_______________________________________________ Tinyos-help mailing list [email protected] https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help
