I never tried, I do not have the motes nor the time unfortunately. The code is here:
https://github.com/mmaroti/tinyos-main/commits/rfxlink-64bit Can you please try it out and see what happend? Miklos On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Roadstar Runner <[email protected]> wrote: > did it work? > Can i have a copy pf the modifications? > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Miklos Maroti <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Thanks, I did not know. I have updated the git repo. Miklos >> >> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Roadstar Runner >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > I used the broadcast address 0x000000000000FFFF since the 802.15.4 spec >> > specifies the boradcast address as 0xFFFF >> > I did not use the ULL postfix cos i was just using the lower 2 bytes of >> > the >> > address >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Miklos Maroti >> > <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> 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
