[Tinyos-host-mote-wg] Re: [Tinyos-2.0wg] RandomC vs RandomLfsrC

[Joe Polastre]

Because of the high timing restrictions (ACKs must occur at a given
offset from the message, messages must be transmitted on symbol
boundaries), I want to stick with LFSR  for CC2420.

-Joe

On 6/6/05, Philip Levis <pal at eecs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> I'm updating cc2420/CSMARadioC.nc and cc1000/CSMARadioC.nc to use
> RandomC rather than RandomLfsrC. Using RandomLfsrC is clearly
> problematic, as it introduces an unnecessary dependency (naming my
> implementation rather than service). If it looks like the radio
> stacks need the cheaper random number generator (Barbara reports that
> the CC1000 definitely doesn't), then we should incorporate this idea
> into the Random interface, rather than binding implementations (e.g,
> have a "random16Fast" command for a cheap but sub-optimal rgen).
> 
> I'll test that the CC1000 stack continues to work with this change
> (and dgay's updates). Can't test the CC2420. For initial testing
> purposes on the CC2420, I'd recommend using an app-specific component
> override for RandomC to wire to RandomLfsrC.
> 
> Phil
> 
> -------
> 
> "We shall not cease from exploration
> And the end of all our exploring
> Will be to arrive where we started
> And know the place for the first time."
> 
> - T. S. Eliot,  'Little Gidding'
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tinyos-2.0wg mailing list
> Tinyos-2.0wg at Mail.Millennium.Berkeley.EDU
> https://mail.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-2.0wg
>

_______________________________________________
Tinyos-2.0wg mailing list
Tinyos-2.0wg at Mail.Millennium.Berkeley.EDU
https://mail.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-2.0wg