Ok, back to the topic: On all platforms the LowPowerListening are exposed in ActiveMessageC, except for
1) intelmote2, sam3u_ek and span, all of them are using CC2420, so I have fixed this in their ActiveMessageC 2) eyesIFX: has Tda5250 radio chip, LowPowerListening is not implemented 3) tinynode: XE1205, has special LPL component and interface So after this we can rely on LowPowerListeining being available, and I will remove the PLATFORM_xxx ifdefs. -------------- Whlile looking this issue, I came across the tosthreads library where every single platform's ActiveMessageC is copied and updated to expose the ReceiveDefault and SnoopDefault interfaces. I think we can expose these interfaces in ActiveMessageC on most platforms (rfxlink radios and cc2420 support this) and remove the duplicated ActiveMessageC files. -------------- Who is going to expose the LinkPacketMetadata interface? I am happy to take pull requests. Miklos On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 6:55 AM, steve ayer <[email protected]> wrote: > hi folks, > > i agree with miklos. > > as for breaking old platforms, that implies that applications cease to run > on them due to development of core tos components. > > but if we want to follow the linux development model, then we must adhere to > the principle that the "kernel" must under no circumstances break user > space. > > the other thing to consider here is that platforms are largely a collection > of chips, most of which live in -main/tos/, so once these implementations > are stable, there should be little to cause an established platform to stop > functioning properly and not too much actual platform code to carry. > > fwiw, > > steve > > > On 01/23/2013 11:49 PM, Eric Decker wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Miklos Maroti <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Hi Eric, >> >> >> I think we should do the same as in linux development: we make >> reasonable effort to keep old platforms up to date, but if it turns >> out that one does not work any more, then either the users of the old >> platform has to make it work again, or we remove the platform. Old >> hardware can lie around and can become useful again for some tests, >> and so there is no point to preemptively remove old platforms before >> they are proven broken. >> >> Miklos >> >> >> I'm okay with that. Less work. >> >> What do others think? >> >> Course there is the problem of how do you tell when something doesn't >> work anymore if no one is actually trying to use something? >> >> >> >> -- >> Eric B. Decker >> Senior (over 50 :-) Researcher >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tinyos-devel mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-devel >> > _______________________________________________ Tinyos-devel mailing list [email protected] https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-devel
