[riot-devel] Neighbor Discovery finalized for now

[Martine Lenders]

Dear routing RIOTers,

with PR #3049 I'm happy to announce that I finally finished my work on
vanilla IPv6 neighbor discovery. Please test it extensive. Things still
missing is the Redirect Function [2] which I see as optional for now
(because it is not really needed for LoWPANs) and the 6LoWPAN optimization
[3] (which I will provide as a follow-up PR next around week).

Cheers,
Martine

[1] https://github.com/RIOT-OS/RIOT/pull/3049
[2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4861#section-8
[3] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6775
___
devel mailing list
devel@riot-os.org
https://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: [riot-devel] API proficiency levels

[Kaspar Schleiser]

Hi,

On 05/22/15 15:44, Joakim Gebart wrote:
> I like the idea of getting rid of some redundant input validation. For
> example, if you are internally using spi_transfer_byte to provide
> spi_transfer_regs, then if the SPI device is valid for the first byte
> transferred, then it is probably going to be valid for the rest of the
> bytes in the same function call chain.
I propose that a device is checked once for validity when calling the
init_function, and then not anymore...

Kaspar
___
devel mailing list
devel@riot-os.org
https://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: [riot-devel] API proficiency levels

[Joakim Gebart]

Did the discussion about redundant parameter validations and DEVELHELP die?

I like the idea of getting rid of some redundant input validation. For
example, if you are internally using spi_transfer_byte to provide
spi_transfer_regs, then if the SPI device is valid for the first byte
transferred, then it is probably going to be valid for the rest of the
bytes in the same function call chain.

There was some discussion about null pointer checks in a PR or a
mailing list thread but I did not find it when I did a brief search.

Best regards,
Joakim Gebart
www.eistec.se


On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Kaspar Schleiser  wrote:
> Hey,
>
> On 03/25/2015 11:12 AM, Hauke Petersen wrote:
>>
>> in general I like the idea, one problem I see is however, that is not
>> always clear, to which level an API belongs (e.g. the GPIO API is
>> definitely used also by high-level application programmers, while still
>> belonging to the low-level peripheral drivers...).
>
> We could mark certain functions / parts of an API as "advanced" in the docs
> and provide "safe" alternatives.
>
> Seriously, it hurts to not be able to work around 10 redundant
> checks whether an int coming from flash is a correct SPI device...
>
>
> Kaspar
> ___
> devel mailing list
> devel@riot-os.org
> https://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
___
devel mailing list
devel@riot-os.org
https://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel