[Tinyos-devel] TEP116 HIL/HAL discussion

[Vlado Handziski]

On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 9:38 PM, Miklos Maroti <mmaroti at math.u-szeged.hu>
wrote:
>> Another question: Where (by which component) should the respective HIL
>> interfaces provided? If the chip specific XActiveMessageC components are
>> not HIL but HAL, then probably somewhere else. Should we require that
>> the platform's ActiveMessageC MUST provide LowPowerListening (in TEP
>> 105), PacketTimeStamp (timestamping TEP), TimeSyncAMSend and
>> TimeSyncPacket (in the packet time sync TEP)? This would override TEP
>> 116's statement on the required signature of ActiveMessageC.
>
> Yes, I think the ActiveMessageC should (or must) provide all these
> interfaces. Actually, it is a pain not to have the LowPowerListening
> in ActiveMessageC. Just witness all the ifdefs for connecting the
> LowPowerListening to the proper XXXActiveMesageC.

The name of the component is not so important, it is the interfaces that
count. It might be convenient to provide them from the same component as the
other AM message interfaces, but it is not a requirement. Given the final
status of 116 and the fact that ActiveMessageC already exports a bunch of
interfaces, going with a separate component, if reasonable from
implementation point of view, might not be a bad idea at all.

Vlado
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/pipermail/tinyos-devel/attachments/20080515/f30fba8a/attachment.htm