Zigbee Pro Support for CC243x?

Hi,  

Unfortuntaly the Z-Stack will not support CC2430 with the ZigBee PRO feature set. The Z-Stack ZigBee PRO feature set is bundled with MSP430 + CC2520, Z-Stack-2.1.0-1.3.0

LPWRocks

 Is the support of CC2430 gonna to be terminated? 

What are the problems implementing the PRO features with the CC243x ????

 Hi,

 Support for CC2430 is not going to be terminated. The support with Z-Stack 1.4.3 for CC2430 is blooming and very active.  

 LPWRocks 

 Hi JP,

No problems, but ZigBee PRO Feature set is just bundled with MSP430+ CC2520 (IEEE 802.15.4 - 2006).   

LPWRocks  

JP said:

What are the problems implementing the PRO features with the CC243x ????

The software complexity ZigBee requires is much bigger than expected some years ago when ZigBee started.

Looks like every chip manufacturer has the problem with increasing code-size and too small build-in flash (SoC!).

LPWRocks said:

No problems, but ZigBee PRO Feature set is just bundled with MSP430+ CC2520 (IEEE 802.15.4 - 2006).   

LPWRocks  

Hi Morton,

 - does ZigBee PRO depend on IEEE802.15.4 - 2006  (instead 2003)?

 - will there IEEE802.15.4 - 2006 Support for CC2430?

OZ

 The TIMAC we provide today supports the IEEE 802.15.4-2003 specification, which is what both the ZigBee and ZigBee PRO feature sets are built upon.  802.15-4-2006 features / modifications are NOT used by ZigBee at this time.  

 At this point in time we do not have a version of TIMAC that supports 15.4-2006, but that does not mean it will not be available in the future.  Stay tuned and let us know more about what 2006 features you are interested in and how you plan on using them in your application.  

Thanks, 

PME_BLUM said:

 The TIMAC we provide today supports the IEEE 802.15.4-2003 specification, which is what both the ZigBee and ZigBee PRO feature sets are built upon.  802.15-4-2006 features / modifications are NOT used by ZigBee at this time.  

 Thank you for clarifying.

But one more question: I looked into CC2520 datasheet. On page 25, table 5 there is a comparsion between CC2420 and CC2520.

Table 5: Comparison of CC2420 and CC2520

Feature                           CC2420                           CC2520
Standard        IEEE 802.15.4-2003          EEE 802.15.4-2006

As far as i know, there are no big differences between 2003 and 2006 (regarding 2.4 GHz).

Is there any reason for different standards listed for CC2420 and CC2520?

OZ said:

The software complexity ZigBee requires is much bigger than expected some years ago when ZigBee started.

Looks like every chip manufacturer has the problem with increasing code-size and too small build-in flash (SoC!)

Hi Oz ! 

So you think the main reason not implementing the PRO is due to the *flash* size. Since I never seen a compiled version of the PRO, I could not be sure, but with 128 KB flash, 8 KB RAM ... I doubt this SoC could lake ressources (for just the stack). Moreover, if the application (and the stack) is very huge, nothing (but the cost) could restrict external ROM/RAM.

And I don't think Ember could back your affirmation since their stack support the PRO set with AMI or the HAA profiles with their EM250 (12MHz 16-bit SoC, 128kB Flash and 5kB RAM) as well as the EM260 (RF transceiver). Nor Jennic (32b MCU and 192k ROM) : http://rfdesign.com/next_generation_wireless/news/pro_wireless_microcontroller_0708/. (to name just a few I found)

The Chipcon SoC, and now the TI new one are really good, and even they are 8bits MCU, they are just aimed at different applications, simpler, ... but the PRO standard has very interresting features simpler application could need too. I am not saying it is easy nor just strait forward to do the same to the smaller TI SoC, just that some customers may require this, and to help Zigbee takeoff, that might have to be done.

But, from the answer of LPWRocks, I assumed it is only a TI decision to only support the PRO with the MSP430/CC2520 combo. Perhaps if the need of the customer rises they will put internal ressources to support SoC as well ? In a matter of fact, (I develop also with the MSP430) I would personally have prefered to be able to use the PRO set with a (future) SoC. MCU + tranceiver are just a convenient way but not as efficient (power, size, ...) as a SoC is.

Hi JP,

I think it's due to the code banking support with the 8051. In general it creates a larger code size than an AVR or MSP for example, so the flash size argument is probably true...