Xiaohui: Please find my answers below.
Are you aware of any case other than failing address recognition that will > cause CC2420 to discard a frame? If not, problem (2) (see > here<http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/50335/how-to-timestamp-packets-with-cc2420-and-msp430f1611>) > seems gone if address recognition is disabled. What about problem (1)? How > is it handled in CC2420X? > If there are two consecutive SFD interrupts, and the first one is missed, the FIFO won't be empty after reading out a packet (since there's another packet in there). The SFD timestamp will correspond to the second packet. Currenlty, the cc2420x handles this by dropping both packets. This is a pretty safe solution. Alternatively, the packets could be accepted, with the timestamp_isValid fields set to FALSE -- there are some comments in the code explaining this. > Is is necessary for SPI to be faster than packet reception for CC2420X's >> timestamping mechanism to work correctly? Or it is just of performance >> concern? >> > No, it's not necessary. It's purely for performance reasons. Janos
_______________________________________________ Tinyos-help mailing list [email protected] https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help
