[Tinyos Core WG] Re: [Tinyos-devel] Re: I2C and SPI sharing

[Vlado Handziski]

On 10/27/06, Philip Levis <pal at cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
> On Oct 27, 2006, at 12:11 PM, Vlado Handziski wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes, there is a race there that needs to be fixed. However, I
> > personally think that clients should not rely on the previous owner
> > properly unconfiguring the resource for proper operation. The
> > configurations after granted should be self contained. That is why
> > I was opposed to the changes Jonathan did in his last commit where
> > the USART is reset in the unconfigure calls, making the success of
> > SetModeXXX depend on the previous unconfigure call.
> >
> > I guess, I am having second thoughts about the need of
> > "unconfigure" in general. Assuming that the resource
> > unconfiguration to a safe, low-power consuming state is memory-less
> > (not depending on the way it was configured by the current owner),
> > such an unconfigure can be done in the configuration step of the
> > ResourceController. Do we have examples in the current code base
> > for which this is not true?
> >
>
> Vlado,
>
> TEP 108 went into last call in the WG on 9/6, and was sent to the SC
> 48 hours after the meeting on that day. There were some significant
> changes, based on discussion on 8/30. Records indicate you were
> present at the 9/6 but not 8/30 meeting.
>
> It sounds like these are good comments to give Matt.
>
>
I don't see a reason for going outside the core group, when the core is
ultimately responsible for addressing the external comments.

Vlado
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.millennium.berkeley.edu/pipermail/tinyos-2.0wg/attachments/20061027/ef36a91b/attachment.htm