• State TI Thinks Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 3 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 53 subscribers
  • Views 452 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Related

This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

Original question:

CC1310: Changing the Address Length with EasyLink

CC1310: Configuration of dstAddr for multiple slaves in star topology

Shubhankar Menon
Expert 1325 points
Part Number: CC1310

Hello

I have an application wherein I have 16 RF transmitters for one RF Receiver. I want to use easyLink to implement this. The RF receiver "pings" each transmitter one by one, collects the data and then moves to the next transmitter. I have two questions:

1. in the easyLiink_txPacket structure there is .dstAddr[8]. Can this be changed to 16 or any other number to have equivalent no. of destination addresses as 16 slaves?

2. supposing my slaves have addresses 0x01,0x02...0x0F. Can I code these as:

txPacket.dstAddr[1] = 0x01 and so on?

3. How will the transmitter know that it is being pinged by the master? is there an address filtering mechanism?

Regards

Shubhankar

  • 0
    TI__Guru**** 317180 points
    1) This means 8 byte address which will give you much more than 16 possible addresses.
    2) Yes
    3) This depends on the protocol you are planning to implement.

    General: If you use address filtering, a packet with the same address set on both the TX and RX side will be accepted, if they are not the packet will be discarded. But are you planning to send a message from the master to one of the 16 nodes and the node sends back the some data?
  • 0 in reply to TER
    Expert 1325 points

    Hello TER

    Thank you for your reply. 1 and 2 is solved.

    3. Yes i intend to perform some sort of "ping" to my node, receive data from it, repeat the same steps for 16 nodes. This design is only to avoid packet collision of any type.

    Would it be prudent to do only a one way communication instead? I was looking at the LBT example, which indefinitely transmits packets if it fails to find a clear channel once. But i still think it would be wise to receive some sort of ACK, that my packet has been received by the receiver, which means i have to do the former approach?

    Please advise.

  • 0 in reply to Shubhankar Menon
    TI__Guru**** 317180 points
    Typically a slave will send data infrequently meaning the risk for collision is small but you should always do a LBT. It depends how critical data the slave is sending. If it sending temp to a indoor display you can cope with a one way system but by sending an ACK you get a more robust system since you are able to retransmit if a packet is lost.