Hi,
On Sun, Sep 4, 2022 at 11:16 PM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Alexander,
>
> aahringo@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on Sat, 3 Sep 2022 15:40:35 -0400:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 3, 2022 at 3:10 PM Alexander Aring <aahringo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Sep 3, 2022 at 3:07 PM Alexander Aring <aahringo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Sep 3, 2022 at 12:06 PM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > On the Tx side, when sending eg. an association request or an
> > > > > association response, I must expect and wait for an ack. This is
> > > > > what I am struggling to do. How can I know that a frame which I just
> > > > > transmitted has been acked? Bonus points, how can I do that in such a
> > > > > way that it will work with other devices? (hints below)
> > > > >
> > > > > > AACK will send a back if a frame with ack request bit was received.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > say in a commit) I have seen no further updates about it so I guess
> > > > > > > it's still not available. I don't see any other way to know if a
> > > > > > > frame's ack has been received or not reliably.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You implemented it for the at86rf230 driver (the spi one which is what
> > > > > > also atusb uses). You implemented the
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ctx->trac = IEEE802154_NO_ACK;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > which signals the upper layer that if the ack request bit is set, that
> > > > > > there was no ack.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But yea, there is a missing feature for atusb yet which requires
> > > > > > firmware changes as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > :'(
> > > >
> > > > There is a sequence handling in tx done on atusb firmware and I think
> > > > it should be pretty easy to add a byte for trac status.
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/atusb/fw/mac.c b/atusb/fw/mac.c
> > > > index 835002c..156bd95 100644
> > > > --- a/atusb/fw/mac.c
> > > > +++ b/atusb/fw/mac.c
> > > > @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ static void receive_frame(void)
> > > >
> > > > static bool handle_irq(void)
> > > > {
> > > > - uint8_t irq;
> > > > + uint8_t irq, data[2];
> > > >
> > > > irq = reg_read(REG_IRQ_STATUS);
> > > > if (!(irq & IRQ_TRX_END))
> > > > @@ -124,7 +124,15 @@ static bool handle_irq(void)
> > > >
> > > > if (txing) {
> > > > if (eps[1].state == EP_IDLE) {
> > > > - usb_send(&eps[1], &this_seq, 1, tx_ack_done, NULL);
> > > > + data[0] = tx_ack_done;
> > > > +
> > > > + spi_begin();
> > > > + spi_io(REG_TRX_STATE);
> > > > +
> > > > + data[1] = spi_recv();
> > > > + spi_end();
> > >
> > > data[1] = reg_read(REG_TRX_STATE) as seen above for REG_IRQ_STATUS
> > > would be better here...
> > >
> >
> > after digging the code more, there is another queue case which we
> > should handle, also correct using buffer parameter instead of the
> > callback parameter which was stupid... However I think the direction
> > is clear. Sorry for the spam.
>
> Don't be, your feedback is just super useful.
>
> > diff --git a/atusb/fw/mac.c b/atusb/fw/mac.c
> > index 835002c..b52ba1a 100644
> > --- a/atusb/fw/mac.c
> > +++ b/atusb/fw/mac.c
> > @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ static uint8_t tx_buf[MAX_PSDU];
> > static uint8_t tx_size = 0;
> > static bool txing = 0;
> > static bool queued_tx_ack = 0;
> > -static uint8_t next_seq, this_seq, queued_seq;
> > +static uint8_t next_seq, this_seq, queued_seq, queued_tx_trac;
> >
> >
> > /* ----- Receive buffer management ----------------------------------------- */
> > @@ -57,6 +57,7 @@ static void tx_ack_done(void *user);
> > static void usb_next(void)
> > {
> > const uint8_t *buf;
> > + uint8_t data[2];
> >
> > if (rx_in != rx_out) {
> > buf = rx_buf[rx_out];
> > @@ -65,7 +66,9 @@ static void usb_next(void)
> > }
> >
> > if (queued_tx_ack) {
> > - usb_send(&eps[1], &queued_seq, 1, tx_ack_done, NULL);
> > + data[0] = queued_seq;
> > + data[1] = queued_tx_trac;
> > + usb_send(&eps[1], data, sizeof(data), tx_ack_done, NULL);
This is also broken, see below.
> > queued_tx_ack = 0;
> > }
> > }
> > @@ -116,7 +119,7 @@ static void receive_frame(void)
> >
> > static bool handle_irq(void)
> > {
> > - uint8_t irq;
> > + uint8_t irq, data[2];
>
> I don't know why, but defining data on the stack just does not work.
> Defining it above with the other static variables is okay. I won't
> fight more for "today" but if someone has an explanation I am all hears.
I can explain it... following the usb_send() it will end in usb_io()
and this is an asynchronous function to use somehow the USB IP core
API of the mcu... it's wrong to use a stack variable here because it
can be overwritten. I am sorry, I did not keep that in mind...
- Alex
