Menu
▾
▴
nanostack-devel — NanoStack list for developers.
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2008 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(4) |
Aug
(1) |
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
|---|
|
From: Haluk D. <hal...@ya...> - 2008-08-08 06:39:42
|
Hello, do anyone knows where to find the schema drawings for n601 and 711(not the data sheets) ? regards, Haluk __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz gegen Massenmails. http://mail.yahoo.com |
|
From: Zach S. <za...@se...> - 2008-07-24 08:39:32
|
Hi Peter, For those new to the list, this thread is discussing making a static option for NanoStack without FreeRTOS as part of the main code. Yes, that could be done in a platform.h. This could be placed in /Platforms/xxxx/includes so platform.h can also deal with any platform-specific issues for the static configuration. Let's do nano first. I'd like to hear Martti's comment about joining the MAC and stack task, there was some good reason, but I can't remember. At least in the static version it is a good idea. Yes, dynamic memory allocation can be removed completely. Should the queue functions go under e.g. queue.c in /Common? So to move forward, how about just putting some placeholder files into the SVN tree with the defines suggested? Then make an example app that uses platform.h. Then together we can start working on the changes to the code using the static define. - Zach Peter Kuhar wrote: > Hi, > > Sorry for my late response. I didn't have time to work on nanostack. I > hope I'll be able to make a 3 way compare between my static 1.0.3, > original 1.0.3 and 1.1.0. <http://1.1.0.> To see what would be the best > way to go. > > Now about the port: I was thinking of creating on include file ( ex. > platform.h ) in place of FreeRTOS includes ( FreeRTOS.h, task.h, queue.h > ). the ifdef for includes between the static and freertos version would > be made in this include. > > Currently there are two tasks handling the stack: mac task and stack > task. Those two processes could be joined in one task even for FreeRTOS > version. > > I've also made my own queue functions. Queue memory allocation is now > done at compile time. Dynamic memory allocation for stack could be > removed completely. > Are there any good reasons to keep using dynamic memory allocation? > > > Cheers, > Peter > > Zach Shelby wrote: >> Hi Peter, >> >> Just made the new nanostack-devel mailing list. Please subscribe here: >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nanostack-devel >> >> And then lets move this discussion to that list as Martti is also >> interested in helping. >> >> I suggest we do it with an app.rules "HAVE_FREERTOS" define, and use >> IFDEFs (fun, I know) throughout. That way we can preserve it in the >> same branch as FreeRTOS is useful for more powerful processors. It >> might not hurt to just use state machines instead of loops also for >> the FreeRTOS version thus avoiding some IFDEFs. >> >> - Zach >> >> Peter Kuhar wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> What do you think would be the cleanest way to make NanoStack static? >>> What I've currently done with 1.0.3 was removing all FreeRTOS and >>> adding lightweight queue support when needed and rewriting some loop >>> into state machines. >>> >>> It would be nice if the static changes could be included into the main >>> branch. But that would probably mean ifdef-ing all of the files. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Peter >>> >>> Zach Shelby wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Just got back from Slovenia last night. We had a great end of our >>>> vacation, pretty good luck with the weather ;-) Didn't make it to Bled >>>> in the end, but we went to Bohinj on Wed, beautiful. Now I need to >>>> come back for skiing and hiking in the future! >>>> >>>> Dr. Roman Trobec from JSI is the local organizer of that summer >>>> school. He is into signal processing for medical sensing applications. >>>> >>>> Network manager is not needed for routing. I think those delays are >>>> related to gateway router timeouts, I will take a look as I don't know >>>> that code very well. Will get back to you on this soon, and will >>>> discuss with Martti too. >>>> >>>> - Zach >>>> >>>> Peter Kuhar wrote: >>>>> Zach Shelby wrote: >>>>>> Hi Peter, >>>>>> >>>>>> Here is the info about that summer school. >>>>> should there be an attachment??? >>>>>> It was cool to meet you in person, sorry such a short meeting,I would >>>>>> have liked to talk tech more ;-) >>>>> The same >>>>>> I am now in a taxi to Kranj and back to get medication for my wife's >>>>>> leg ;-) Luckily we have travel insurance.. >>>>> Is she ok? >>>>>> Let's keep in touch about using NanoStack in your product. I kind of >>>>>> like make an optional version of NanoStack 1.x with a static >>>>>> implementation instead of FreeRTOS. I'll think about what that means >>>>>> in practice. >>>>> I've basically removed all FreeRTOS dependencies from nanostack and >>>>> ported my apps to use the new stack. The port unfortunately doesn't >>>>> have >>>>> the save code base as the FreeRTOS version( it's not just a couple of >>>>> ifdefa and macros, although I think it could be. ) >>>>> The only problem is see is nwk_manager.c. There are a couple of >>>>> long 15s >>>>> delay used there. So this part would have to be implemented in a more >>>>> state machine fashion. >>>>> Is nwk_manager.c in any way mandatory for routing? >>>>> >>>>>> As we also have MSP430 support you could use that in your MSP430 on >>>>>> your product. >>>>> I use MSP430F2011 which is the lowest possible cost MSP with 2k flash >>>>> and 128bytes of ram just to do some realtime stuff. So no nanostack >>>>> here. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Peter >>>>>> - Zach >>>>>> >>>>>> Peter Kuhar wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Zach, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Great. I was thinking of going to Bled to visit a friend who is >>>>>>> doing >>>>>>> his MBA there. Sometime next week. Or we could also meet in >>>>>>> Ljubljana(1 >>>>>>> hour from Bled ). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You have a lot of possibilities starting from Bled. It's a good >>>>>>> starting >>>>>>> point for the mountains. Or our coast(2hours, although I prefer >>>>>>> Croatia >>>>>>> which is about 3 hours from Bled). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Will you be reachable by email? My mobile is +386 31 392 047. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Zach Shelby wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi Peter, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Monday we (with my wife, 2 kids, and mother-in-law) are leaving to >>>>>>>> Slovenia for vacation. We will be in Bled until July 3rd with >>>>>>>> basically no fixed program. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How about we meet up in person while I'm in Slovenia? Either you >>>>>>>> could >>>>>>>> hop up to Bled for half a day or I can come down to Ljubljana. I'd >>>>>>>> probably like to see Ljubljana anyways as I've never visited. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> Zach >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > -- Zach Shelby | Head of Research | +358 40 7796297 Sensinode Ltd. www.sensinode.com |
|
From: Peter K. <pe...@pk...> - 2008-07-09 20:14:17
|
Hi, Sorry for my late response. I didn't have time to work on nanostack. I hope I'll be able to make a 3 way compare between my static 1.0.3, original 1.0.3 and 1.1.0. To see what would be the best way to go. Now about the port: I was thinking of creating on include file ( ex. platform.h ) in place of FreeRTOS includes ( FreeRTOS.h, task.h, queue.h ). the ifdef for includes between the static and freertos version would be made in this include. Currently there are two tasks handling the stack: mac task and stack task. Those two processes could be joined in one task even for FreeRTOS version. I've also made my own queue functions. Queue memory allocation is now done at compile time. Dynamic memory allocation for stack could be removed completely. Are there any good reasons to keep using dynamic memory allocation? Cheers, Peter Zach Shelby wrote: Hi Peter, Just made the new nanostack-devel mailing list. Please subscribe here: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nanostack-devel And then lets move this discussion to that list as Martti is also interested in helping. I suggest we do it with an app.rules "HAVE_FREERTOS" define, and use IFDEFs (fun, I know) throughout. That way we can preserve it in the same branch as FreeRTOS is useful for more powerful processors. It might not hurt to just use state machines instead of loops also for the FreeRTOS version thus avoiding some IFDEFs. - Zach Peter Kuhar wrote: Hi, What do you think would be the cleanest way to make NanoStack static? What I've currently done with 1.0.3 was removing all FreeRTOS and adding lightweight queue support when needed and rewriting some loop into state machines. It would be nice if the static changes could be included into the main branch. But that would probably mean ifdef-ing all of the files. Cheers, Peter Zach Shelby wrote: Hi, Just got back from Slovenia last night. We had a great end of our vacation, pretty good luck with the weather ;-) Didn't make it to Bled in the end, but we went to Bohinj on Wed, beautiful. Now I need to come back for skiing and hiking in the future! Dr. Roman Trobec from JSI is the local organizer of that summer school. He is into signal processing for medical sensing applications. Network manager is not needed for routing. I think those delays are related to gateway router timeouts, I will take a look as I don't know that code very well. Will get back to you on this soon, and will discuss with Martti too. - Zach Peter Kuhar wrote: Zach Shelby wrote: Hi Peter, Here is the info about that summer school. should there be an attachment??? It was cool to meet you in person, sorry such a short meeting,I would have liked to talk tech more ;-) The same I am now in a taxi to Kranj and back to get medication for my wife's leg ;-) Luckily we have travel insurance.. Is she ok? Let's keep in touch about using NanoStack in your product. I kind of like make an optional version of NanoStack 1.x with a static implementation instead of FreeRTOS. I'll think about what that means in practice. I've basically removed all FreeRTOS dependencies from nanostack and ported my apps to use the new stack. The port unfortunately doesn't have the save code base as the FreeRTOS version( it's not just a couple of ifdefa and macros, although I think it could be. ) The only problem is see is nwk_manager.c. There are a couple of long 15s delay used there. So this part would have to be implemented in a more state machine fashion. Is nwk_manager.c in any way mandatory for routing? As we also have MSP430 support you could use that in your MSP430 on your product. I use MSP430F2011 which is the lowest possible cost MSP with 2k flash and 128bytes of ram just to do some realtime stuff. So no nanostack here. Cheers, Peter - Zach Peter Kuhar wrote: Hi Zach, Great. I was thinking of going to Bled to visit a friend who is doing his MBA there. Sometime next week. Or we could also meet in Ljubljana(1 hour from Bled ). You have a lot of possibilities starting from Bled. It's a good starting point for the mountains. Or our coast(2hours, although I prefer Croatia which is about 3 hours from Bled). Will you be reachable by email? My mobile is +386 31 392 047. Cheers, Peter Zach Shelby wrote: Hi Peter, Monday we (with my wife, 2 kids, and mother-in-law) are leaving to Slovenia for vacation. We will be in Bled until July 3rd with basically no fixed program. How about we meet up in person while I'm in Slovenia? Either you could hop up to Bled for half a day or I can come down to Ljubljana. I'd probably like to see Ljubljana anyways as I've never visited. Cheers, Zach |
|
From: Peter K. <pe...@pk...> - 2008-07-09 19:28:53
|
Hi, Sorry for my late response. I didn't have time to work on nanostack. I hope I'll be able to make a 3 way compare between my static 1.0.3, original 1.0.3 and 1.1.0. To see what would be the best way to go. Now about the port: I was thinking of creating on include file ( ex. platform.h ) in place of FreeRTOS includes ( FreeRTOS.h, task.h, queue.h ). the ifdef for includes between the static and freertos version would be made in this include. Currently there are two tasks handling the stack: mac task and stack task. Those two processes could be joined in one task even for FreeRTOS version. I've also made my own queue functions. Queue memory allocation is now done at compile time. Dynamic memory allocation for stack could be removed completely. Are there any good reasons to keep using dynamic memory allocation? Cheers, Peter Zach Shelby wrote: > Hi Peter, > > Just made the new nanostack-devel mailing list. Please subscribe here: > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nanostack-devel > > And then lets move this discussion to that list as Martti is also > interested in helping. > > I suggest we do it with an app.rules "HAVE_FREERTOS" define, and use > IFDEFs (fun, I know) throughout. That way we can preserve it in the > same branch as FreeRTOS is useful for more powerful processors. It > might not hurt to just use state machines instead of loops also for > the FreeRTOS version thus avoiding some IFDEFs. > > - Zach > > Peter Kuhar wrote: >> Hi, >> >> What do you think would be the cleanest way to make NanoStack static? >> What I've currently done with 1.0.3 was removing all FreeRTOS and >> adding lightweight queue support when needed and rewriting some loop >> into state machines. >> >> It would be nice if the static changes could be included into the main >> branch. But that would probably mean ifdef-ing all of the files. >> >> Cheers, >> Peter >> >> Zach Shelby wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Just got back from Slovenia last night. We had a great end of our >>> vacation, pretty good luck with the weather ;-) Didn't make it to Bled >>> in the end, but we went to Bohinj on Wed, beautiful. Now I need to >>> come back for skiing and hiking in the future! >>> >>> Dr. Roman Trobec from JSI is the local organizer of that summer >>> school. He is into signal processing for medical sensing applications. >>> >>> Network manager is not needed for routing. I think those delays are >>> related to gateway router timeouts, I will take a look as I don't know >>> that code very well. Will get back to you on this soon, and will >>> discuss with Martti too. >>> >>> - Zach >>> >>> Peter Kuhar wrote: >>>> Zach Shelby wrote: >>>>> Hi Peter, >>>>> >>>>> Here is the info about that summer school. >>>> should there be an attachment??? >>>>> It was cool to meet you in person, sorry such a short meeting,I would >>>>> have liked to talk tech more ;-) >>>> The same >>>>> I am now in a taxi to Kranj and back to get medication for my wife's >>>>> leg ;-) Luckily we have travel insurance.. >>>> Is she ok? >>>>> Let's keep in touch about using NanoStack in your product. I kind of >>>>> like make an optional version of NanoStack 1.x with a static >>>>> implementation instead of FreeRTOS. I'll think about what that means >>>>> in practice. >>>> I've basically removed all FreeRTOS dependencies from nanostack and >>>> ported my apps to use the new stack. The port unfortunately doesn't >>>> have >>>> the save code base as the FreeRTOS version( it's not just a couple of >>>> ifdefa and macros, although I think it could be. ) >>>> The only problem is see is nwk_manager.c. There are a couple of >>>> long 15s >>>> delay used there. So this part would have to be implemented in a more >>>> state machine fashion. >>>> Is nwk_manager.c in any way mandatory for routing? >>>> >>>>> As we also have MSP430 support you could use that in your MSP430 on >>>>> your product. >>>> I use MSP430F2011 which is the lowest possible cost MSP with 2k flash >>>> and 128bytes of ram just to do some realtime stuff. So no nanostack >>>> here. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Peter >>>>> - Zach >>>>> >>>>> Peter Kuhar wrote: >>>>>> Hi Zach, >>>>>> >>>>>> Great. I was thinking of going to Bled to visit a friend who is >>>>>> doing >>>>>> his MBA there. Sometime next week. Or we could also meet in >>>>>> Ljubljana(1 >>>>>> hour from Bled ). >>>>>> >>>>>> You have a lot of possibilities starting from Bled. It's a good >>>>>> starting >>>>>> point for the mountains. Or our coast(2hours, although I prefer >>>>>> Croatia >>>>>> which is about 3 hours from Bled). >>>>>> >>>>>> Will you be reachable by email? My mobile is +386 31 392 047. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Peter >>>>>> >>>>>> Zach Shelby wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Peter, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Monday we (with my wife, 2 kids, and mother-in-law) are leaving to >>>>>>> Slovenia for vacation. We will be in Bled until July 3rd with >>>>>>> basically no fixed program. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How about we meet up in person while I'm in Slovenia? Either you >>>>>>> could >>>>>>> hop up to Bled for half a day or I can come down to Ljubljana. I'd >>>>>>> probably like to see Ljubljana anyways as I've never visited. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> Zach >>>>>>> >>> >> > > |
|
From: Zach S. <za...@se...> - 2008-07-08 08:55:03
|
-- Zach Shelby | Head of Research | +358 40 7796297 Sensinode Ltd. www.sensinode.com |
