[Tinyos-devel] TEP116 HIL/HAL discussion

[Philip Levis]

On May 15, 2008, at 11:54 AM, Janos Sallai wrote:

>>> Why do you want to specify from
>>> above what the HAL for the radio components should look like and
>>> even what names they should have?
>>
>> To make platform definition simpler.
>
> Does this imply then that TEP 105, as well as the time stamping/sync
> TEPs, should prescribe that the chip specific XActiveMessageC  
> components
> MUST provide the respective interfaces?
>
> 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.

TEP 116 says what you MUST do to be compliant with it; this doesn't  
prevent other TEPs from specifying what you MUST do to be compliant  
with them. As TEP 116 does not say "ActiveMessageC MUST NOT have any  
interfaces besides these," it doesn't cause problems for 105, etc.

Phil