[Tinyos-devel] the MPS430 sleep model and start/stop behavior

Ion Yannopoulos ion at eecs.berkeley.edu
Mon Feb 28 11:28:54 PST 2005


Yuval Peduel wrote:

> Joe Polastre wrote:
>
>> Also, I'm happy to remove the StdControl interface from CC2420RadioC
>> if you think that it would "solve" your problem.
>>
>>
> I was asking about standards. Is the current implementation of the 
> StdControl interface on CC2420RadioC considered compliant? If it is, 
> then there is no reason to touch it. If it isn't, then it should 
> either be fixed or removed.
>
I do want to make sure something is clear here, as this has come up 
before when discussing the ADC: what do you mean by "current 
implementation"? The one in 1.x? The 1.x interfaces are not "compliant" 
with anything in the 2.x discussion nor should you expect them to be. 
The primary purpose of moving to 2.x is to allow a clean start, and not 
worry about backwards compatibility. However this means that any cleaned 
up of abstractions are not intended to be applied to 1.x directly, as 
this would break existing code, which we do not want to do. We do not 
plan to alter 1.x code to fit the new designs precisely to allow 2.x the 
freedom to evolve without that worry. So there is no such thing as a 2.x 
compliant interface in the existing code base.

If you mean the one in 2.x, then it is intended to be compliant yes, but 
it is also not finalized and subject to criticism and feedback, and if 
you see problems, then by all means mention them. But if you are 
wondering why the code in the 1.x tree does not meet the new standards 
it is because it isn't intended to. If you, or anyone else, wants to be 
sure that things are correct going forward, start by fine-combing the 
TEPs, and when the draft 2.x code is ready you can see if that fits.

Ion

-- 
Ion Yannopoulos				ion eecs berkeley edu
TinyOS Programmer			http://www.tinyos.net



More information about the Tinyos-devel mailing list