[Tinyos-host-mote-wg] Re: [Tinyos-2.0wg] Bridge, agenda for TinyOS 2.x 10/5

[Kevin Klues]

Joe Polastre wrote:

>You need to clear up your terminology.  Up to this point, radios in
>TinyOS have included their MAC protocol within the radio code.  What I
>recommend is a different structuring of the radio stacks, one where
>the packet send and receive mechanisms are the radio "driver" and then
>the MAC protocol is built on top of that.  S-MAC employed this method
>a few years ago, and I think it is the right way to go.  Then you
>build your MAC protocols above the radio packet driver.
>
>This gets to my next point: what is the HIL of the radio and can one
>even exist?  In other words, is the HIL the interface to the radio
>driver or to the MAC?  I argue that an HIL for either cannot possibly
>exist.
>
>Providing platform/radio independent access at the physical layer to
>link layers is extremely tricky to do in a power efficient manner.
>
>  
>
I actually agree with this 100%.  What I am proposing is not to 
completely divorce the MAC implementation from the radio, but rather 
figure out which parts actually need to be radio dependent, and which 
ones could be separated.  I think the the CSMA/LPL spearateion in the 
case of B-MAC is a good candidate.

My comments about the HIL of the radio were just thrown in there to 
spark some discussion since nothing conrete was ever decided upon by the 
gropup on this issue...  I personally don't see a good way to do this 
either.  I just thought people might have some ideas related to this 
since it did seem to be somewhat related to what I was proposing if such 
an interface could be found.

Kevin
_______________________________________________
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