[Tinyos-devel] again about the baudrate issue for telos
klueska at gmail.com
Tue Feb 17 09:15:09 PST 2009
TOSThreads requires 57600 even for mote -> PC
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Jorge Ortiz <jortiz at cs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> If we're taking a poll, I vote to slow it down to 57600. I've had trouble
> with the higher speed with and without the serial forwarder. At 57600 all
> my serial-related reliability problems went away and the code I was working
> with was significantly more stable.
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 11:24 PM, Andreas Köpke <koepke at tkn.tu-berlin.de>
>> The bottom line of the discussion was very simple: many users seem to be
>> with 57600 bit/s, especially if packets should travel from PC to mote: the
>> telos node can not handle the interrupt load at higher baud rates. But as
>> pointed out: due to some long atomic sections in the TinyOS code, this is
>> still no guarantee that the packet will arrive at the mote.
>> In my experience the reliability of the connection from mote to PC is more
>> serial forwarder issue than anything else.
>> Maybe we should take a poll on this.
>> Best, Andreas
>> Stephen Dawson-Haggerty wrote:
>> > I don't know what other tests people have run, but at least in my
>> > experience (all on linux) 115200 seems to have more dropped packets and
>> > be
>> > less stable when you're sending quickly. I haven't run any micro tests
>> > on
>> > this, though; I'd be happy to if someone has one. Perhaps the cygwin
>> > serial is going to be equally unreliable at all rates...
>> > This mail thread seemed to end without resolution, so I'm also curious
>> > about what happened...
>> > Steve
>> > On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Philip Levis <pal at cs.stanford.edu>
>> > wrote:
>> > > On Feb 16, 2009, at 1:26 PM, Stephen Dawson-Haggerty wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Everybody seems to have agreed that the default msp430 uart speed
>> > > should
>> > >
>> > >> be 57600-- can somebody in core make the change? It is definitely
>> > >> much
>> > >> more reliable at the slower baud rate...
>> > >>
>> > >> Best,
>> > >> Steve
>> > >
>> > > Hold on -- I think we went over this a long long time ago, and found
>> > > out
>> > > the problem was Cygwin, not TinyOS per se. Can someone summarize the
>> > > tests that have been run (read/write load, host OS)? The mail thread
>> > > doesn't seem to have much detail.
>> > >
>> > > Phil
>> Tinyos-devel mailing list
>> Tinyos-devel at millennium.berkeley.edu
> Tinyos-devel mailing list
> Tinyos-devel at millennium.berkeley.edu
More information about the Tinyos-devel