[Tinyos-devel] GenericComm

get at EECS.Berkeley.EDU get at EECS.Berkeley.EDU
Mon Jun 28 20:49:35 PDT 2004


Does anybody remember why the decision was made to hide the UART interface behind a "magic address"?

Giving each interface its own separate communications component seems to make more sense. Users could wire the UART component if they needed it, and could later wire a stub component like NoLeds to disable it. A higher-level layer could wire both, and then use its own logic to decide where to send packets.

This would have the added benefit of enabling the UART to actually carry addresses of its own, for transparent forwarding of messages, or for distinguishing between multiple listeners on the PC side of a SerialForwarder. Granted, nobody does this now, but isn't it time that our PCs stopped being nameless hangers-on in mote-space?

But as memory-saving short-term measures go, David's sounds great.

Gil


----- Original Message -----
From: Cory Sharp <cory.sharp at gmail.com>
Date: Monday, June 28, 2004 6:30 pm
Subject: Re: [Tinyos-devel] GenericComm

> David's is the best yet. :)
> 
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:24:29 -0700, David Gay <dgay at intel-
> research.net> wrote:
> > 
> > The slightly simpler approach is for the application to have 
> it's own
> > UARTFramedPacket which just drops the packets (or passes them 
> onto the radio if
> > you really want).
> > 
> > David
> _______________________________________________
> Tinyos-devel mailing list
> Tinyos-devel at Millennium.Berkeley.EDU
> http://mail.Millennium.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-devel
> 



More information about the Tinyos-devel mailing list