> Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 03:27:09PM CET, starnight@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 11:18:59AM CET, starnight@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> >LoRaWAN defined by LoRa Alliance(TM) is the MAC layer over LoRa devices. > >> > > >> >This patch implements part of Class A end-devices SoftMAC defined in > >> >LoRaWAN(TM) Specification Ver. 1.0.2: > >> >1. End-device receive slot timing > >> >2. Only single channel and single data rate for now > >> >3. Unconfirmed data up/down message types > >> > > >> >On the other side, it defines the basic interface and operation > >> >functions for compatible LoRa device drivers. > >> > > >> >Signed-off-by: Jian-Hong Pan <starnight@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> >--- > >> >V2: > >> >- Split the LoRaWAN class module patch in V1 into LoRaWAN socket and > >> > LoRaWAN Soft MAC modules > >> >- Modify for Big/Little-Endian > >> >- Use SPDX license identifiers > >> > > >> >V3: > >> >- Remove the decoration word - inline of the functions > >> >- Order local variables from longest to shortest line in the functions > >> >- Change the calling mac_cb function to lrw_get_mac_cb macro > >> > > >> >V4: > >> >- Fix the delay period between RX window#1 and window#2 > >> >- Fix by coding style report from scripts/checkpatch.pl > >> > > >> >V5: > >> >- Initial rx_skb_list when it is allocated with LoRa hardware > >> >- Check the sk_buff's data length before access it > >> >- Deal FPort field and decrypt payload in lrw_parse_frame function > >> >- Drop the recieved frame if parse failed > >> >- Fix the bug which passes wrong skb properties from maclorawan to lorawan module > >> > > >> > net/maclorawan/Kconfig | 14 + > >> > net/maclorawan/Makefile | 2 + > >> > net/maclorawan/mac.c | 555 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> > net/maclorawan/main.c | 606 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> > 4 files changed, 1177 insertions(+) > >> > create mode 100644 net/maclorawan/Kconfig > >> > create mode 100644 net/maclorawan/Makefile > >> > create mode 100644 net/maclorawan/mac.c > >> > create mode 100644 net/maclorawan/main.c > >> > >> > >> I don't get it. In patch "Add LoRaWAN API declaration for LoRa devices" > >> you add headers for "API" and here you implement functions. That is just > >> weird. Does it mean you can have other implementations? > > > >LoRaWAN defined by LoRa Alliance(TM) is the MAC layer over LoRa PHY. > >This part is soft-MAC as Andreas mentioned > >http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-lpwan/2018-December/000010.html > > Okay, that does not answer my concern about header file in one patch and > the actual implementation of functions in another one. Just for clarification: - Patch "net: lorawan: Add LoRaWAN socket module" is for lorawan module - Patch "net: lorawan: Add LoRaWAN API declaration for LoRa devices" containes the header file "include/linux/lora/lorawan.h" which will be included by LoRa device drivers or other kernel modules. - Patches "net: maclorawan: Add maclorawan module declaration", "net: maclorawan: Implement the crypto of maclorawan module" and "net: maclorawan: Implement maclorawan class module" are for maclorawan module. Question 1: Should I marge "net: maclorawan: Add maclorawan module declaration", "net: maclorawan: Implement the crypto of maclorawan module" and "net: maclorawan: Implement maclorawan class module" into a single patch named "net: maclorawan: Add maclorawan as the soft-MAC module"? Then: For example, after a LoRa device driver includes the header "linux/lora/lorawan.h", the device driver will call "lrw_alloc_hw()" and pass with a "struct lrw_operations" type of variable's pointer. It gets a type of "struct lrw_hw *" pointer. Then, it will call "lrw_register_hw()" to register the device. The device driver implements the callback functions for the "struct lrw_operations" type of variable by it self before calls "lrw_alloc_hw()". Question 2: Should the patch "net: lorawan: Add LoRaWAN API declaration for LoRa devices" also be merged into "net: maclorawan: Add maclorawan as the soft-MAC module" or "net: maclorawan: Implement maclorawan class module"? Or, just leave it as a single patch?
