[Tinyos-devel] Proposed UART Changes

[Joaquín Cabezas]

Good idea. I would suggest using [TOS_UART_OFF, TOS_UART_RONLY,
TOS_UART_TONLY, TOS_UART_DUPLEX] as "TOS_DUPLEX_OFF" is semantically
strange.

> I like it. Very simple, gives quite a bit of control without having a lot
> of
> different commands to implement.
>
> Am I right in assuming that TOS_DUPLEX_OFF would be automatic
> half-duplexing? or just both send/receive entirely shut-off and
> TOS_DUPLEX_RONLY will enable reception/disable sending?
>
> As long as we still are having run-time configurable baudrate then that
> should be good.
>
> Trevor Pace
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 8:47 PM, Philip Levis <pal at cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jun 26, 2009, at 11:09 AM, Philip Levis wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > 2 major changes: async operations and comments.
>> >
>> > Comments/feedback welcome.
>> >
>> > interface UartControl {
>>
>> In the recent core call, Vlado suggested that
>>
>> enableRx()
>> disableRx()
>> rxEnabled()
>>
>> enableTx()
>> disableTx()
>> txEnabled()
>>
>> be replaced by
>>
>> // TOS_DUPLEX_OFF, TOS_DUPLEX_RONLY, TOS_DUPLEX_TONLY, TOS_DUPLEX_FULL
>> error_t setDuplexMode(tos_duplex_t d)
>> tos_duplex_t getDuplexMode();
>>
>> Thoughts? With the enums, we can check at compile time whether a
>> particular mode is supported.
>>
>> Phil
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tinyos-devel mailing list
>> Tinyos-devel at millennium.berkeley.edu
>> https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-devel
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Tinyos-devel mailing list
> Tinyos-devel at millennium.berkeley.edu
> https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-devel
>