[Tinyos Core WG] AdcConfigure and struct return

[Philip Levis]

On Sep 21, 2006, at 1:47 PM, Vlado Handziski wrote:

>
> I don't want to nitpick this, but the mspgcc manual says: "All  
> global variables with the "const" attribute are allocated in the  
> main ROM space". And I've always assumed that variables declared  
> after implements{... are global.

I think David's point was that while the mspgcc manual might promise  
that, other C compilers may not. I also assume that mspgcc doesn't  
promise to always do it in the future... Furthermore, not all gcc  
ports do so, and therefore you might be introducing a significant RAM  
cost.

>
> David, I am _proposing_ something. I've stated my arguments why I  
> think it is a better top level interface then the existing HAL2 mess.
> You and I can disagree on the importance of  architectural concepts  
> or if something is silly or not, but you can not deny the obvious  
> benefits that the HAA brought to the project in terms of number of  
> ported platforms. What I am getting tired of is pushing these  
> "silly" architectural things against all the accumulated corporate  
> interest in this less and less academic project.

I think that there is definitely some corporate pressure, but I'd be  
hard pressed to say that it has really been influencing decisions  
much. Rather, I think there's a growing feeling (which I personally  
share) that we need to start moving on. By that, I don't mean stop  
working on TinyOS. What I mean is finish parts so that we can build  
upwards. Ultimately, the goal of 2.0 is to build a better version of  
TinyOS to enable sensornet research. If it's never fully built, we  
have failed in that goal. Completing something that is 95% of perfect  
is infinitely better than not completing something that is perfect.  
Given that David is supposed to be moving away from his heavy coding  
(his boss says so), if something continues to be in committee he can  
no longer work on it.

>
> As long as we don't have a proper TEP voting procedure (like the  
> +1, 0, -1, which I proposed on the same telecon together with the  
> whole TEP concept) pushing a TEP out when there is no consensus is  
> a war of attrition. The TEP is out, and the ball is in Phil's  
> corner as WG leader.

I think the issue here is less with the TEP and more with the level  
of change that it has undergone. It's one of the earliest ones, and  
has undergone numerous very major revisions. The most recent revision  
was just two months ago, with the re-introduction of the HIL. I'm led  
to agree with your comment a little while back ago that the changes  
have, for the most part, all been towards a clear and desirable goal.  
But from the perspective of people who are trying to write code that  
matches the TEP, (and I might be putting words in David's mouth here)  
I'm sure you can imagine that it might be frustrating.


>
> Fine. Maybe we should just go back to good old  tinyos-1.x ways,  
> when there were zero tinyos ports outside Berkeley on non-atmel  
> platforms. I am not sure who is pushing his idea as the only "right  
> way" here.
>

I, for one, do not want to go back to that approach.

Phil