On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 09:18:16AM -0700, will sanfilippo wrote:
> For #2, my only “concerns” (if you could call them such) are:
> * Using OS_EVENT_TIMER as opposed to some other event. Should all
> OS_EVENT_TIMER events be caused by a timer? Probably no big deal… What
> events are going to be processed here? Do you envision many host
> events?
Yes, I agree. I think a more appropriate event type would be
OS_EVENT_CALLBACK or similar. I am a bit leery about adding a new OS
event type for this case, because it would require all applications to
handle an extra event type without any practical benefit. Perhaps
mynewt could relieve this burden with an "os_handle_event()" function
which processes these generic events. My concern there is that
applications may want to add special handling for certain event types,
so they wouldn't want to call the helper function anyway.
The OS events that the host would generate are:
* Incoming ACL data packets.
* Incoming HCI events.
* Expired timers.
> * I wonder about the complexity of this from an application developers
> standpoint. Not saying that what you propose would be more or less
> complex; just something we should consider when making these changes.
I think the taskless design reduces complexity for the application
developer. If there is no host task, the developer can worry less about
task priorities and stack sizes.
> On a side note (I guess it is related), we should consider how
> applications are going to initialize the host and/or the controller in
> regards to system memory requirements (i.e. mbufs). While our current
> methodology to create a BLE app is not rocket science, I think we
> could make it a bit simpler.
Yes, definitely. As you say, the setup is not terribly complicated, but
it does involve a fair number of steps, so it will seem complicated to
someone not familiar with Mynewt.
Chris
