[Tinyos-devel] the MPS430 sleep model and start/stop behavior
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 Yannopoulos ion eecs berkeley edu
TinyOS Programmer http://www.tinyos.net
More information about the Tinyos-devel