Is the broadcast address 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFULL? Miklos

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Roadstar Runner
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
> Yes i would like to use the ActiveMessageC framework.
> I hope that eventually a define in the makefile will upgrade the am address
> to  a 64 bit version   .
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Miklos Maroti <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>> Ok, I have started to look into this. Do you want to use the
>> ActiveMessageC framework, right? How do you want to eventually handle
>> the 64-bit address vs the 16-bit address defined in AM.h? Maybe we
>> should change am_addr_t to 64-bit? Miklos
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Roadstar Runner
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > So far no luck :-(
>> > I was under the impression that this is all i should need. Are there any
>> > other quirks in the RF230 that might be causing a problem?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Miklos Maroti
>> > <[email protected]>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Looks good! Let me know if you run into problems. If it works, then I
>> >> will merge it back to the mainline. Miklos
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Roadstar Runner
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> > Hi Miklos,
>> >> > Thanks for the quick response.
>> >> > i made the following changes to support 64 bit addressing
>> >> >
>> >> > /*************** File Ieee154PacketLayer.h*****************/
>> >> > typedef nx_struct ieee154_header_t
>> >> > {
>> >> >     nxle_uint16_t fcf;
>> >> >     nxle_uint8_t dsn;
>> >> >     nxle_uint16_t destpan;
>> >> >     #ifdef RF230_EXTENDED_ADDR_MODE
>> >> >     nxle_uint64_t dest;
>> >> >     nxle_uint64_t src;
>> >> >     #else
>> >> >     nxle_uint16_t dest;
>> >> >     nxle_uint16_t src;
>> >> >     #endif
>> >> > } ieee154_header_t;
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > /**************************
>> >> > Ieee154PacketLayerP.nc**********************/
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > enum
>> >> >     {
>> >> >         IEEE154_DATA_FRAME_MASK = (IEEE154_TYPE_MASK <<
>> >> > IEEE154_FCF_FRAME_TYPE)
>> >> >             | (1 << IEEE154_FCF_INTRAPAN)
>> >> >             | (IEEE154_ADDR_MASK << IEEE154_FCF_DEST_ADDR_MODE)
>> >> >             | (IEEE154_ADDR_MASK << IEEE154_FCF_SRC_ADDR_MODE),
>> >> >
>> >> >         IEEE154_DATA_FRAME_VALUE = (IEEE154_TYPE_DATA <<
>> >> > IEEE154_FCF_FRAME_TYPE)
>> >> >             | (1 << IEEE154_FCF_INTRAPAN)
>> >> >             #ifdef RF230_EXTENDED_ADDR_MODE
>> >> >             | (IEEE154_ADDR_EXT << IEEE154_FCF_DEST_ADDR_MODE)
>> >> >             | (IEEE154_ADDR_EXT << IEEE154_FCF_SRC_ADDR_MODE),
>> >> >             #else
>> >> >             | (IEEE154_ADDR_SHORT << IEEE154_FCF_DEST_ADDR_MODE)
>> >> >             | (IEEE154_ADDR_SHORT << IEEE154_FCF_SRC_ADDR_MODE),
>> >> >             #endif
>> >> >         IEEE154_ACK_FRAME_LENGTH = 3,    // includes the FCF, DSN
>> >> >         IEEE154_ACK_FRAME_MASK = (IEEE154_TYPE_MASK <<
>> >> > IEEE154_FCF_FRAME_TYPE),
>> >> >         IEEE154_ACK_FRAME_VALUE = (IEEE154_TYPE_ACK <<
>> >> > IEEE154_FCF_FRAME_TYPE),
>> >> >     };
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > /************************** RF230DriverHwAckP.nc
>> >> > *******************************************/
>> >> >                    temp = call ActiveMessageAddress.amAddress();
>> >> >                     #ifdef RF230_EXTENDED_ADDR_MODE
>> >> >                     writeRegister(RF230_IEEE_ADDR_0, temp);
>> >> >                     writeRegister(RF230_IEEE_ADDR_1, temp >> 8);
>> >> >                     #else
>> >> >                     writeRegister(RF230_SHORT_ADDR_0, temp);
>> >> >                     writeRegister(RF230_SHORT_ADDR_1, temp >> 8);
>> >> >                     #endif
>> >> >
>> >> > Right now i am only using the lower 2 address bytes for testing.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> > Lou
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Miklos Maroti
>> >> > <[email protected]>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hi Lou,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Roadstar Runner
>> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> > Hi Miklos,
>> >> >> > Thank you very much. I do not even get the interrupt from the
>> >> >> > radio
>> >> >> > if i
>> >> >> > use
>> >> >> > RX_AACK mode. If use the basic mode , it works fine.
>> >> >> > I used a TI (CC2430) sniffer and was able to see teh messages
>> >> >> > being.
>> >> >> > The
>> >> >> > data i included is from the sniffer.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > If i set the filter on the sniffer to 802.15.4 packets, it shows
>> >> >> > all
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > fields as i expect I have attached a screenshot of the sniffer
>> >> >> > capture.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Does tinyos  support 64bit 802.15.4 addressing at the hardware
>> >> >> > level
>> >> >> > ?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The current ActiveMessageC for the RF230 works only with 16-bit
>> >> >> addresses, so that is the problem. You can try to hack every piece
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> code to make it work, but that is not easy. If you decide to go
>> >> >> ahead
>> >> >> with that, then I can give some pointers. Basically, you want only
>> >> >> 64-bit addresses, so no mixing should be allowed, otherwise the
>> >> >> address of other fields in the packet need to be calculated
>> >> >> dynamically.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Miklos
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Thanks once again,
>> >> >> > Lou
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Miklos Maroti
>> >> >> > <[email protected]>
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> If you have serial working, then you can define
>> >> >> >> RADIO_DEBUG_MESSAGES
>> >> >> >> which will print out the received messages via the DiagMsg
>> >> >> >> protocol.
>> >> >> >> You should connect your mote to a PC, and there run the "java
>> >> >> >> net.tinyos.utils.DiagMsg" application. Take a look at
>> >> >> >> RF230DriverLayerP.nc line 677, you can also put some LED commands
>> >> >> >> there the verify that you get messages. The RF230 does not do any
>> >> >> >> hardware filtering, only the FCS (even snooping works, and CRC
>> >> >> >> check
>> >> >> >> is done in software). Miklos
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Roadstar Runner
>> >> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > The data i had posted seems to have lost its formatting, so i
>> >> >> >> > am
>> >> >> >> > re
>> >> >> >> > posting
>> >> >> >> > the raw  data captured by the sniffer
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > 41 CC 11 22 00 FF FF 00 00 00 00 00 00 F8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
>> >> >> >> > 3F
>> >> >> >> > 08
>> >> >> >> > 0B
>> >> >> >> > 03
>> >> >> >> > 00 F8 00 0F 10 00 AA 01 F8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> >> >> > Tinyos-help mailing list
>> >> >> >> > [email protected]
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
_______________________________________________
Tinyos-help mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help

Reply via email to