gnrc_netif: add general IID to/from l2addr conversion functions#10513
gnrc_netif: add general IID to/from l2addr conversion functions#10513haukepetersen merged 4 commits intoRIOT-OS:masterfrom
Conversation
b20cdb4 to
80258ef
Compare
|
Rebased to current master and new dependencies. |
…c_netif_hdr/enh/conv-iid-getter
c618ccd to
b2a05a5
Compare
|
Rebased to and adapted for current master (since the #10514 dependency actually requires a PR downstream from this PR - #10514 (comment)). Ready for review and testing. |
maribu
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good to me code-wise :-)
|
I hope I can test it tomorrow with the |
|
To me it looks like the current issue Murdock uncovered seems to be unrelated. @cladmi: As far as I know you are a linker magician. Care to have a look at the murdock build log? This does not seem to be an overflow, as in case of an overflow I get a message like this: (I cannot recall how the message looks like in case of a RAM overflow, but I assume it will also use the phrase "overflowed by xy bytes".) |
|
would you mind to rebase? That would simplify the review a bit... Thx |
|
Back on track: @maribu were you able to test by now? |
|
To show the output for the On my With this PR: With a "bigger" RAM, So the board just needs to be put in |
|
Works fine with the CC1100/MSB-A2 using the current cc110x driver and works fine with the CC1101/MSB-IoT using PR #10340 |
|
@gschorcht can you test with ESP32? |
|
Works fine with the ESP32 |
|
Thanks for testing @maribu and @gschorcht! |
|
I just found my |
You don't have to if you don't have the time. |
|
@miri64 I forgot to mention, I tested ESP32 only with I have also an ESP32 board with EMAC and LAN8270 ethernet interface. So, I tested it with |
|
What I'm wondering about ESP-NOW is that for examples its _send function expects the data to be a pointer to an ipv6_hdr_t: But with 6Lo, wouldn't something along those lines be needed, where the first byte of the data indicates what actually follows: Or is that unpacked for ESP-NOW at an earlier point, and it only gets to see properly fragmented actual IPv6 packages? |
|
But to answer your question: yes ESP-now needs then to assume, that the first header is a 6Lo dispatch instead of a IPv6 header. |
|
(this whole file looks rather hacked I might add oO) |
|
tested all remaining link layers successfully:
|
They are required to make GNRC's 6Lo IPHC implementation ready for hardware addresses other than IEEE 802.15.4's.
0535402 to
bc1b490
Compare
|
Squashed |
|
Marked |
c7d146d to
f757376
Compare
|
all green -> go! |
Contribution description
They are required to make GNRC's 6Lo IPHC implementation ready for hardware addresses other than IEEE 802.15.4's.
Testing procedure
Pinging a link-local address with
gnrc_networkingshould still work forIssues/PRs references
Depends on
#10509(merged),#10514(invalid dependency), and#10515(merged).