Re: [RFC net-next 00/15] net: A socket API for LoRa

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

 



Dear Andreas,

I put the kernel support for the SX1276 LoRa chip in question. I don’t think that this kind of device should be in the Linux kernel.

Here are a few facts to consider:
- A LoRa transaction is very slow  (e.g. SF7 needs about 210 ms, for SF12 6280 ms) for 12 bytes user data with acknowledge.

- There are many different implementations for the antenna switch, switching between receiving/sending, PA-BOOST, 433, 868/915 MHz. (I know SX1276 Heltec ESP32, SX1276 Murata, RFM95-(1276), SX1276 Heltec STM32-L4) they are all different regarding this.

- The LoRa chip device ID is only 8-bit which is not sufficient for larger networks, e.g. our RadioShuttle protocol uses compressed 32-bit device IDs.

- The chip can do MTU sizes up to 2048 bytes, most protocols use less than 250 bytes.

- Applications do on-the-fly channel and spreading factor switching which makes it more difficult for the configuration.

- The chip supports Lora modulation as well as  FSK, GFSK, MSK, GMSK, and OOK modulation, for some use cases the other modulations are of interest, e.g. to communicated with other devices.

- Power saving modes, like sleep, suspend may be required for battery operation.

- Cad detection is very flexible and can be differently used.

- LoRa preamble may be different depending on the protocol used.

- The new Lora chip SX1262 / 68 (successor of the SX1276) has different hardware and all different registers, it is driver incompatible with the SX1276. It needs an entire new driver.

- The device is not multi-process capable (only a single process can communicate with it).

- There are SX1276 LoRa modules with a build-in protocol (LoRaWAN and RAW) via a serial connection only, again complete different API compared the SX1276 chip. Software updates for this devices are difficult.

- I am even convinced that the LoRaWAN protocol with the concentrator concept is not good, the peer to peer communication and a standard MQTT gateway (what we do) is way more flexible.

For all this reasons, I feel a user level driver task implementation is way more flexible. I did a lot of work/enhancements on the SX1276 link level driver from Semtech, it is available and maintained on mbed.org and supports mbed-os, Arduino and is prepared for Linux.
https://os.mbed.com/users/Helmut64/code/SX1276GenericLib/

Protocols e.g. our RadioShuttle LoRa peer to peer protocol or the LoRaWAN protocol can run on top of the SX1276GenericLib. We may should focus on such a driver library getting supported for multiple OS's (Win, Linux, mbed, Ardino, etc.)

Again I feel a Linux kernel device driver for the SX1276 chip make little sense for me.

Regards
Helmut Tschemernjak (www.radioshuttle.de, www.helios.de)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-spi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux ARM (vger)]     [Linux ARM MSM]     [Linux Omap]     [Linux Arm]     [Linux Tegra]     [Fedora ARM]     [Linux for Samsung SOC]     [eCos]     [Linux Fastboot]     [Gcc Help]     [Git]     [DCCP]     [IETF Announce]     [Security]     [Linux MIPS]     [Yosemite Campsites]

  Powered by Linux