[Tinyos-host-mote-wg] [Tinyos-2.0wg] Re: [Tinyos-2-commits] CVS:
tinyos-2.x/tos/chips/cc2420 CC2420Command.nc, NONE,
1.1.2.1 CC2420ControlP.nc, NONE, 1.1.2.1 CC2420RadioP.nc, NONE,
1.1.2.1 CC2420Ram.nc, NONE, 1.1.2.1 CC2420ActiveMessageC.nc,
1.1.2.1, 1.1.2.2 CC2420ActiveMessageP.nc, 1.1
Joe Polastre
joe at polastre.com
Mon Sep 12 11:46:28 PDT 2005
- Previous message: [Tinyos-host-mote-wg] RE: [Tinyos-2.0wg] Meeting 9/7 - NOTES
- Next message: [Tinyos-host-mote-wg] [Tinyos-2.0wg] Re: [Tinyos-2-commits] CVS:
tinyos-2.x/tos/chips/cc2420
CC2420Command.nc, NONE, 1.1.2.1 CC2420ControlP.nc, NONE, 1.1.2.1
CC2420RadioP.nc, NONE, 1.1.2.1 CC2420Ram.nc, NONE, 1.1.2.1
CC2420ActiveMessageC.nc, 1.1.2.1, 1.1.2.2 CC2420ActiveMessageP.nc, 1.1
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
> 3) Adjusted backoff timers for greater throughput and fairness.
> The 1.x stack had the congestion timer be 4x the initial
> backoff timer: this creates a capture effect, where a node
> who just transmitted is more likely to be able to transmit
> again. I observed this behavior with my slamming test app: one
> node would transmit a lot, then the other node would transmit
> a lot. I reversed the relationship and cut the timers in half:
> initial is now 32us-1ms and congestion is 32us-256us. Now, with
> two nodes slamming each other, I observe 330-340 pps in each
> direction, and the tx/rx counts are within 3-4% of each other
> (reasonable fairness). Given that CCA is being done with
> a timer in the micaZ, I suspect that Telos throughput would
> be higher.
The original stack was as per the 802.15.4 backoff timer specification.
> 5) Added another platform component, CC2420PlatformAlarmC, which
> represents the async timer the platform must supply for the
> TX backoff/abort logic.
This can be handled with the Timer system, there is no longer a need
for a CC2420 Alarm but rather just an Alarm<T32khz>
> 1) Currently, for sanity in CC2420RadioP, all register commands
> and accesses are synchronous (blocking). This is fine
> when you want to do 1 or 2, but could be a serious issue once the
> Resource interface comes into play and bus access is split-phase.
> However, making every register access split-phase would make
> CC2420RadioP have a ridiculously intricate state machine which
> would take us years to find all of the bugs in. Therefore,
> the register interfaces also have a mechanism for putting a
> register command into a RAM buffer. The idea is that if you need
> to do 10 register ops, you put all of them in a buffer and just send
> it as one big SPI packet, which would then be a single split-phase
> op.
We had this debate back in April 04. Basically the split phase makes
it impossible to deal with from a logic perspective.
-Joe
_______________________________________________
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
- Previous message: [Tinyos-host-mote-wg] RE: [Tinyos-2.0wg] Meeting 9/7 - NOTES
- Next message: [Tinyos-host-mote-wg] [Tinyos-2.0wg] Re: [Tinyos-2-commits] CVS:
tinyos-2.x/tos/chips/cc2420
CC2420Command.nc, NONE, 1.1.2.1 CC2420ControlP.nc, NONE, 1.1.2.1
CC2420RadioP.nc, NONE, 1.1.2.1 CC2420Ram.nc, NONE, 1.1.2.1
CC2420ActiveMessageC.nc, 1.1.2.1, 1.1.2.2 CC2420ActiveMessageP.nc, 1.1
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
More information about the Tinyos-host-mote-wg
mailing list