[Tinyos Core WG] T2 Mica* Timers

[Martin Turon]

Switching from the free running philosophy to the hard limit at 230ms should not be a big change.  

If we know that to be the root cause, perhaps making that change would be the best way forward.

I'm pretty sure most folks would rather have a really solid timer system than save a few uA of consumption.

Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: tinyos-2.0wg-bounces at Mail.Millennium.Berkeley.EDU on behalf of David Gay
Sent: Mon 2/5/2007 9:00 AM
To: David Moss
Cc: TinyOS Core WG
Subject: Re: [Tinyos Core WG] T2 Mica* Timers
 
On 2/2/07, David Moss <dmm at rincon.com> wrote:
> We're seeing lots of issues with the reliability of AVR
> timers.  Has anybody else been working on testing timers
> on mica* mote types?  They just don't seem to work as
> reliably as they did in TinyOS 1.x.

I've had a lot of problems with them. The root of the difference
between the 1.x and 2.x code is that the 1.x code never lets the h/w
timer wrap around (always resets it it 0, and sets a deadline before
something like 220).

In 2.x, the timer is in free running mode and very weird stuff seems
to happen to deadlines around 0, 0xff, etc. I thought I had a working
solution, but I've thought that before.

You don't happen to have a reproducable misbehaving case do you ? ;-)

David
_______________________________________________
Tinyos-2.0wg mailing list
Tinyos-2.0wg at Mail.Millennium.Berkeley.EDU
https://mail.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-2.0wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.millennium.berkeley.edu/pipermail/tinyos-2.0wg/attachments/20070205/808ad951/attachment.html