-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.1k
ieee802154/at86rf2xx: port to Radio HAL #19015
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
jia200x
wants to merge
11
commits into
RIOT-OS:master
Choose a base branch
from
jia200x:pr/at86rf2xx_radio_hal_v3
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
11 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
ea59bf2
ieee802154/nrf802154: fix missing ieee802154 dependency
jia200x ed94bb8
ieee802154/radio: add support for cipher_ops
jia200x c55f242
ieee802154/at86rf2xx: add initial Radio HAL support
jia200x 64b482a
tests/ieee802154_hal: add support for AT86RF2XX
jia200x 3a9ab03
tests/ieee802154_submac: add support for AT86RF2XX radios
jia200x f854a1c
tests/driver_at86rf2xx/Makefile.ci: add board to blacklist
jia200x ef40268
fixup! ieee802154/radio: add support for cipher_ops
jia200x 3ddbc6d
fixup! ieee802154/at86rf2xx: add initial Radio HAL support
jia200x 844fd5f
fixup! ieee802154/at86rf2xx: add initial Radio HAL support
jia200x c718568
fixup! ieee802154/at86rf2xx: add initial Radio HAL support
jia200x a8990e5
fixup! tests/ieee802154_hal: add support for AT86RF2XX
jia200x File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would keep it optional whether to use hardware offloading. IIRC pings were actually faster without.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's probably due to all the
spi_aquire()- we should move those to the entry points of rf_ops instead of doing it for every register read, but that's for a follow-up.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
and
at86rf230does not have this featureThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
should I then just leave it as it is? or catch the
at86rf230case?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ok, we would not need
cipher_modesif we know there is onlyat86rf2xxin use and for example not an additionalat86rf215or other 802.15.4 transceiver (I know its probably an uncommon case). To gain more from it we should test if we needcipher_opsorat86rf2xx_aes_spi.Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We should probably introduce a
netdev_ieee802154_submac_soft_cipher(netdev_ieee802154_submac_sw_cipher?) (analogous to the proposednetdev_ieee802154_submac_soft_retrans) that drivers without HW crypto can then select.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sounds good. If we have that the right modules are selected dynamically base on the transceivers.
But changing the dependency of
at86rf2xx_aes_spiin this PR is not really advisable.Or would you still do it here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have no strong feelings about this, I was just surprised that it was not build in.
That's probably also why @jia200x didn't notice that the current version crashes when
at86rf2xx_aes_spiis enabled, because when you want to testieee802154_securityit just works - because the HW acceleration is not used.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
then should I just leave it as it is for now? We can address that in a follow up.