Hi, On Fri, 7 Jan 2022 at 02:40, Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Alexander, > > alex.aring@xxxxxxxxx wrote on Thu, 6 Jan 2022 23:21:45 -0500: > > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 at 14:15, Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Alexander, > > > > > > alex.aring@xxxxxxxxx wrote on Wed, 5 Jan 2022 19:23:04 -0500: > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > A HardMAC driver does not use this driver interface... but there > > > > exists a SoftMAC driver for a HardMAC transceiver. This driver > > > > currently works because we use dataframes only... It will not support > > > > scanning currently and somehow we should make iit not available for > > > > drivers like that and for drivers which don't set symbol duration. > > > > They need to be fixed. > > > > > > My bad. I did not look at it correctly. I made a mistake when talking > > > about a hardMAC. > > > > > > Instead, it is a "custom" low level MAC layer. I believe we can compare > > > the current mac802154 layer mostly to the MLME that is mentioned in the > > > spec. Well here the additional layer that needs these hooks would be > > > the MCPS. I don't know if this will be upstreamed or not, but the need > > > for these hooks is real if such an intermediate low level MAC layer > > > gets introduced. > > > > > > In v2 I will get rid of the two patches adding "driver access" to scans > > > and beacons in order to facilitate the merge of the big part. Then we > > > will have plenty of time to discuss how we can create such an interface. > > > Perhaps I'll be able to propose more code as well to make use of these > > > hooks, we will see. > > > > > > > That the we have a standardised interface between Ieee802154 and > > (HardMAC or SoftMAC(mac802154)) (see cfg802154_ops) which is defined > > according the spec would make it more "stable" that it will work with > > different HardMAC transceivers (which follows that interface) and > > mac802154 stack (which also follows that interface). If I understood > > you correctly. > > > I am not sure. I am really talking about a softMAC. I am not sure > where to put that layer "vertically" but according to the spec the MCPS > (MAC Common Part Sublayer) is the layer that contains the data > primitives, while MLME has been designed for management and > configuration. > ok. > > I think this is one reason why we are not having any HardMAC > > transceivers driver supported in a proper way yet. > > > > I can also imagine about a hwsim HardMAC transceiver which redirects > > cfg802154 to mac802154 SoftMAC instance again (something like that), > > to have a virtual HardMAC transceiver for testing purpose, etc. In > > theory that should work... > > Yeah I see what you mean, but IMHO that's basically duplicating the > softMAC layer, we already have hwsim wired to cfg802154 through > mac802154. In a certain way we could argue that this is a hardMAC =) Would be good to show people "here is how to write a HardMAC driver..." if this is even possible without any change yet. - Alex
