uracoli-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [uracoli-devel] Zigbit variants


From: Axel Wachtler
Subject: Re: [uracoli-devel] Zigbit variants
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 10:32:37 +0100
User-agent: KMail/1.9.9

Hello Charles, 

the differences between Rev. A and Rev. B are small, they are 
listed in "AVR2009: AT86RF230 – Software Programming Model".

From the programming view the main differences are:

the functional differences between both revisions of the radio transceiver are 
listed below:

Value in RG_VERSION_NUM  
 - A: 1 
 - B: 2 
FCS status of received frames (RX) 
 - A: n.a. 
 - B: see SR_RX_CRC_VALID 
Transmission of pending data bit in ACK-frame (RX_AACK) 
 - A: n.a. 
 - B: see SR_AACK_SET_PD 
Reception of pending data bit in ACK-frame (TX_ARET)  
  - A: n.a.  
  - B: value TRAC_SUCCESS_DATA_PENDING in SR_TRAC_STATUS 
Ongoing transaction aborted unsuccessfully (TX_ARET)  
  - A: n.a.  
  - B: value TRAC_INVALID in SR_TRAC_STATUS

So, the main difference is SR_RX_CRC_VALID, if you receive frames in RX_ON 
then for Rev. A. you need to calculate the CRC in Software while in Rev. B. 
you can read the register.

The pending data stuff is more relevant for MAC implementations, thats one 
reason why the current Atmel MAC release does no more support Rev. A. 
(Another reason was a bug in the address filter if I remember correctly).

If you receive frames in RX_AACK the chip version does not matter, so all your 
boards can go with a Rev. A.

Cheers, Axel

Am Montag, 6. Dezember 2010 01:49:53 schrieb Charles Goyard:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm in the process of adding the boards I use for the juggle balls into
> uracoli (there's about 4 of them), so it will make a good check for the
> "adding your board" documentation.
>
> However, there's something with zigbit modules I can't solve : the ones
> built by Meshnetics use RF230 rev A and the newer ones from Atmel use
> RF230 rev B. Some of my boards use RF230A, and some RF230B (about 50 of
> each).
>
> - should I use a #define ZIGBIT_230A / ZIGBIT_230B ?
> - or should I make a new base_zdma1280B.h for the newer zigbit modules ?
> - or more generally can we consider RF230A and RF230B are the same and
> pass the test in trx_identify() ? (probably not a good idea, but I can't
> find the "migration note" pointed out in the datasheet)
>



> Thanks for any suggestions,



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Axel Wachtler
Mail:        address@hidden
Fingerprint: FA2C 4FB1 AC18 5FA3 F4F1 1114 3F38 E0DF 8C3A DC95
Public Key:  http://www.keyserver.net
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wer abnimmt, hat mehr vom Telefon.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]