Skip to content
  • MySensors
  • OpenHardware.io
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo
  1. Home
  2. Bug Reports
  3. [solved] RFM69 based nodes unable to report Lib Version

[solved] RFM69 based nodes unable to report Lib Version

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Bug Reports
51 Posts 8 Posters 17.8k Views 5 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • scalzS scalz

    @korttoma
    i'm working on rfm69 so i put this on my list ;)

    korttomaK Offline
    korttomaK Offline
    korttoma
    Hero Member
    wrote on last edited by
    #3

    @scalz said:

    @korttoma
    i'm working on rfm69 so i put this on my list ;)

    If you get to the point where you have something that could be tested please feel free to let me know.
    I have a small setup that I use for testing so I could possibly help with testing even if I have limited hardware.

    • Tomas
    1 Reply Last reply
    1
    • scalzS Offline
      scalzS Offline
      scalz
      Hardware Contributor
      wrote on last edited by scalz
      #4

      @korttoma

      I have not looked at your msg version problem yet.

      Well if you want to try something it's possible...so here it is:

      • List of changes, some notes, and current status : https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/191NpTBogLPijYxS2V_oHZnVlcW4B65J1kXAqYrr4qeE/edit#gid=884074439
      • https://github.com/scalz/Mysensors

      Don't try the listenmode for the moment plz :)
      I'm not sure yet, but i think i will remove conditional define on ATC as it does not use lot of mem. etc..

      Do you use softspi, w5100. I have all hardware but no time to test this part. This should work now.

      Sidenote:
      I'm ok to help one or two betatester only for the moment. Lucky!
      Be a little bit more patient, PR should go soon now as you can see from the current status ;)

      Enjoy :smiley:

      chrilleC 1 Reply Last reply
      3
      • T Offline
        T Offline
        TimO
        Hero Member
        wrote on last edited by
        #5

        I've tinkered a little w5100-RFM69-gateway lateley wich works with the softspi implementation I've tried to push the other day. I'll give your implementation a try at the weekend.

        1 Reply Last reply
        2
        • scalzS Offline
          scalzS Offline
          scalz
          Hardware Contributor
          wrote on last edited by
          #6

          @TimO

          ah okay! welcome betatester :)

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • hekH Offline
            hekH Offline
            hek
            Admin
            wrote on last edited by hek
            #7

            @korttoma

            The node seems to send parent info here:

            TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=6,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=1,st=OK:0

            And myscontroller logs this:

            17.10.2016 9:12:04 RX 101;255;3;0;6;0

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • scalzS scalz

              @korttoma

              I have not looked at your msg version problem yet.

              Well if you want to try something it's possible...so here it is:

              • List of changes, some notes, and current status : https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/191NpTBogLPijYxS2V_oHZnVlcW4B65J1kXAqYrr4qeE/edit#gid=884074439
              • https://github.com/scalz/Mysensors

              Don't try the listenmode for the moment plz :)
              I'm not sure yet, but i think i will remove conditional define on ATC as it does not use lot of mem. etc..

              Do you use softspi, w5100. I have all hardware but no time to test this part. This should work now.

              Sidenote:
              I'm ok to help one or two betatester only for the moment. Lucky!
              Be a little bit more patient, PR should go soon now as you can see from the current status ;)

              Enjoy :smiley:

              chrilleC Offline
              chrilleC Offline
              chrille
              wrote on last edited by
              #8

              @scalz said:

              • List of changes, some notes, and current status : https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/191NpTBogLPijYxS2V_oHZnVlcW4B65J1kXAqYrr4qeE/edit#gid=884074439
              • https://github.com/scalz/Mysensors

              Be a little bit more patient, PR should go soon now as you can see from the current status ;)

              It's great to see work being put into the RFM69 driver. I have tried to install your code and updated my gateway and a sensor node

              On the sensor node I added

              sendSignalStrength(1);
              sendRadioTxLevel(1);
              

              and in the debug window I see

              6899 TSF:MSG:SEND,1-1-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=29,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:51
              7035 !TSF:MSG:SEND,1-1-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=30,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=NACK:0
              

              Message type 30 always fails (st=NACK) - is this expected?

              Gateway is ESP8266 and node is Anarduino (328p+RFM69CW)

              J 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • chrilleC chrille

                @scalz said:

                • List of changes, some notes, and current status : https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/191NpTBogLPijYxS2V_oHZnVlcW4B65J1kXAqYrr4qeE/edit#gid=884074439
                • https://github.com/scalz/Mysensors

                Be a little bit more patient, PR should go soon now as you can see from the current status ;)

                It's great to see work being put into the RFM69 driver. I have tried to install your code and updated my gateway and a sensor node

                On the sensor node I added

                sendSignalStrength(1);
                sendRadioTxLevel(1);
                

                and in the debug window I see

                6899 TSF:MSG:SEND,1-1-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=29,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:51
                7035 !TSF:MSG:SEND,1-1-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=30,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=NACK:0
                

                Message type 30 always fails (st=NACK) - is this expected?

                Gateway is ESP8266 and node is Anarduino (328p+RFM69CW)

                J Offline
                J Offline
                jpaulin
                wrote on last edited by jpaulin
                #9

                @korttoma

                I get exactly the same bug. I found a way to solve it, but not sure if it's the root cause.
                I use RFM69W and the latest release from the Development Branch.

                From your message dump:

                TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=6,l=2,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:0100
                !TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=255,c=0,t=17,pt=0,l=10,sg=0,ft=0,st=NACK:2.0.1-beta
                TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=6,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=1,st=OK:0
                

                The Internal Presentation Message with Lib Version as payload always fails. (!TSF: c=0, t=17, st=NACK:2.0.1-beta)

                The message is sent immediately after the previously sent internal message (TSF: c=3, t=15, st=OK:0100) (t=15 => I_REQUEST_SIGNING).
                The Gateway responds the Signing Preference Message to the node exactly at the same time the node tries to send the Lib Version Presentation Message to the Gateway. Seems that won't work. There's no buffering?
                I added a 1s delay for test purpose in MySensorsCore.cpp to give time to finish the response from the gateway before sending the Lib Version Presentation Message.

                New message dump from my test-node after changes:

                TSF:MSG:SEND,3-3-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=6,l=2,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:0100
                TSF:MSG:READ,0-0-3,s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=6,l=2,sg=0:0100
                TSF:MSG:SEND,3-3-0-0,s=255,c=0,t=17,pt=0,l=10,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:2.0.1-beta
                TSF:MSG:SEND,3-3-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=6,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:0
                

                Now a new message appears in the node, the response message from the Gateway to the Signing Preference Message, and the presentation of the Lib Version works as expected.

                TSF:MSG:READ,0-0-3,s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=6,l=2,sg=0:0100 
                TSF:MSG:SEND,3-3-0-0,s=255,c=0,t=17,pt=0,l=10,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:2.0.1-beta
                

                In MySensorsCore.cpp at line 216 I added a wait(1000); to mitigate the issue.

                	// Send signing preferences for this node to the GW
                	signerPresentation(_msgTmp, GATEWAY_ADDRESS);
                
                wait(1000);
                
                		// Send presentation for this radio node
                	#if defined(MY_REPEATER_FEATURE)
                		(void)present(NODE_SENSOR_ID, S_ARDUINO_REPEATER_NODE);
                	#else
                		(void)present(NODE_SENSOR_ID, S_ARDUINO_NODE);
                	#endif
                

                I guess the final patch would look different and would need to be looked into by @Anticimex or @hek. :smiley:

                AnticimexA 1 Reply Last reply
                1
                • J jpaulin

                  @korttoma

                  I get exactly the same bug. I found a way to solve it, but not sure if it's the root cause.
                  I use RFM69W and the latest release from the Development Branch.

                  From your message dump:

                  TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=6,l=2,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:0100
                  !TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=255,c=0,t=17,pt=0,l=10,sg=0,ft=0,st=NACK:2.0.1-beta
                  TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=6,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=1,st=OK:0
                  

                  The Internal Presentation Message with Lib Version as payload always fails. (!TSF: c=0, t=17, st=NACK:2.0.1-beta)

                  The message is sent immediately after the previously sent internal message (TSF: c=3, t=15, st=OK:0100) (t=15 => I_REQUEST_SIGNING).
                  The Gateway responds the Signing Preference Message to the node exactly at the same time the node tries to send the Lib Version Presentation Message to the Gateway. Seems that won't work. There's no buffering?
                  I added a 1s delay for test purpose in MySensorsCore.cpp to give time to finish the response from the gateway before sending the Lib Version Presentation Message.

                  New message dump from my test-node after changes:

                  TSF:MSG:SEND,3-3-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=6,l=2,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:0100
                  TSF:MSG:READ,0-0-3,s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=6,l=2,sg=0:0100
                  TSF:MSG:SEND,3-3-0-0,s=255,c=0,t=17,pt=0,l=10,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:2.0.1-beta
                  TSF:MSG:SEND,3-3-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=6,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:0
                  

                  Now a new message appears in the node, the response message from the Gateway to the Signing Preference Message, and the presentation of the Lib Version works as expected.

                  TSF:MSG:READ,0-0-3,s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=6,l=2,sg=0:0100 
                  TSF:MSG:SEND,3-3-0-0,s=255,c=0,t=17,pt=0,l=10,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:2.0.1-beta
                  

                  In MySensorsCore.cpp at line 216 I added a wait(1000); to mitigate the issue.

                  	// Send signing preferences for this node to the GW
                  	signerPresentation(_msgTmp, GATEWAY_ADDRESS);
                  
                  wait(1000);
                  
                  		// Send presentation for this radio node
                  	#if defined(MY_REPEATER_FEATURE)
                  		(void)present(NODE_SENSOR_ID, S_ARDUINO_REPEATER_NODE);
                  	#else
                  		(void)present(NODE_SENSOR_ID, S_ARDUINO_NODE);
                  	#endif
                  

                  I guess the final patch would look different and would need to be looked into by @Anticimex or @hek. :smiley:

                  AnticimexA Offline
                  AnticimexA Offline
                  Anticimex
                  Contest Winner
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #10

                  @jpaulin the signing backend is already waiting for the GW to send a message. So if it is not waiting long enough I believe the existing delay should be increased instead: https://github.com/mysensors/MySensors/blob/development/core/MySigning.cpp#L158

                  Do you feel secure today? No? Start requiring some signatures and feel better tomorrow ;)

                  tekkaT 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • AnticimexA Anticimex

                    @jpaulin the signing backend is already waiting for the GW to send a message. So if it is not waiting long enough I believe the existing delay should be increased instead: https://github.com/mysensors/MySensors/blob/development/core/MySigning.cpp#L158

                    tekkaT Offline
                    tekkaT Offline
                    tekka
                    Admin
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #11

                    @Anticimex This is a conditional wait(), i.e. only when signing is enabled: https://github.com/mysensors/MySensors/blob/development/core/MySigning.cpp#L154-L160

                    Since the GW always replies to signing preferences, but the node only waits if signing is enabled - this message will eventually collide with the following lib version message, as seen above.

                    I suggest removing the surrounding #ifdef.

                    AnticimexA 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • tekkaT tekka

                      @Anticimex This is a conditional wait(), i.e. only when signing is enabled: https://github.com/mysensors/MySensors/blob/development/core/MySigning.cpp#L154-L160

                      Since the GW always replies to signing preferences, but the node only waits if signing is enabled - this message will eventually collide with the following lib version message, as seen above.

                      I suggest removing the surrounding #ifdef.

                      AnticimexA Offline
                      AnticimexA Offline
                      Anticimex
                      Contest Winner
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #12

                      @tekka true. Moving the existing delay outside the preprocessor condition should help.

                      Do you feel secure today? No? Start requiring some signatures and feel better tomorrow ;)

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      1
                      • AnticimexA Offline
                        AnticimexA Offline
                        Anticimex
                        Contest Winner
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #13

                        @jpaulin could you please file a pull request with the delay moved outside the preprocessor condition (as you have the rig to verify the change works)?

                        Do you feel secure today? No? Start requiring some signatures and feel better tomorrow ;)

                        J 1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • AnticimexA Anticimex

                          @jpaulin could you please file a pull request with the delay moved outside the preprocessor condition (as you have the rig to verify the change works)?

                          J Offline
                          J Offline
                          jpaulin
                          wrote on last edited by jpaulin
                          #14

                          @Anticimex
                          I don't know how to file a pull request, so I put the test results here.

                          Modified as follows to remove the preprocessor condition at: https://github.com/mysensors/MySensors/blob/development/core/MySigning.cpp#L154-L160

                          // #if defined(MY_SIGNING_FEATURE)
                              // If we do support signing, wait for the gateway to tell us how it prefer us to transmit our messages
                              if (destination == GATEWAY_ADDRESS) {
                          	    SIGN_DEBUG(PSTR("Waiting for GW to send signing preferences...\n"));
                          	    wait(2000, C_INTERNAL, I_SIGNING_PRESENTATION);
                          }
                          // #endif
                          

                          solves the issue.

                          At the same time the internal message received from the gateway seems to be erroneously transferred to the receive() function in a sketch. Adding to the sketch

                          void receive(const MyMessage &message) {
                              Serial.println("something came in");
                          }
                          

                          gets the message dump:

                          2310 TSF:MSG:SEND,3-3-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=6,l=2,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:0100
                          2332 TSF:MSG:READ,0-0-3,s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=6,l=2,sg=0:0100
                          something came in
                          2409 TSF:MSG:SEND,3-3-0-0,s=255,c=0,t=17,pt=0,l=10,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:2.0.1-beta
                          2496 TSF:MSG:SEND,3-3-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=6,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:0
                          

                          To solve this I made the following change to _processInternalMessages(void) in MySensorsCore.cpp.
                          Line https://github.com/mysensors/MySensors/blob/development/core/MySensorsCore.cpp#L407 is replaced with:

                          	else if (type == I_SIGNING_PRESENTATION) {
                          	}
                          	else return false;
                          

                          The message dump now looks like this:

                          2250 TSF:MSG:SEND,3-3-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=6,l=2,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:0100
                          2269 TSF:MSG:READ,0-0-3,s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=6,l=2,sg=0:0100
                          2331 TSF:MSG:SEND,3-3-0-0,s=255,c=0,t=17,pt=0,l=10,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:2.0.1-beta
                          2441 TSF:MSG:SEND,3-3-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=6,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:0
                          

                          At the API description page https://www.mysensors.org/download/serial_api_20 seems to be another error.
                          For the internal message t=15 the name description

                          I_REQUEST_SIGNING 	15 	Used between sensors when initialting signing.
                          

                          should be changed to

                          I_SIGNING_PRESENTATION 	15 	Provides signing related preferences.
                          

                          This I think is relevant both for the master and the development branch.

                          AnticimexA 2 Replies Last reply
                          1
                          • J jpaulin

                            @Anticimex
                            I don't know how to file a pull request, so I put the test results here.

                            Modified as follows to remove the preprocessor condition at: https://github.com/mysensors/MySensors/blob/development/core/MySigning.cpp#L154-L160

                            // #if defined(MY_SIGNING_FEATURE)
                                // If we do support signing, wait for the gateway to tell us how it prefer us to transmit our messages
                                if (destination == GATEWAY_ADDRESS) {
                            	    SIGN_DEBUG(PSTR("Waiting for GW to send signing preferences...\n"));
                            	    wait(2000, C_INTERNAL, I_SIGNING_PRESENTATION);
                            }
                            // #endif
                            

                            solves the issue.

                            At the same time the internal message received from the gateway seems to be erroneously transferred to the receive() function in a sketch. Adding to the sketch

                            void receive(const MyMessage &message) {
                                Serial.println("something came in");
                            }
                            

                            gets the message dump:

                            2310 TSF:MSG:SEND,3-3-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=6,l=2,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:0100
                            2332 TSF:MSG:READ,0-0-3,s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=6,l=2,sg=0:0100
                            something came in
                            2409 TSF:MSG:SEND,3-3-0-0,s=255,c=0,t=17,pt=0,l=10,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:2.0.1-beta
                            2496 TSF:MSG:SEND,3-3-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=6,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:0
                            

                            To solve this I made the following change to _processInternalMessages(void) in MySensorsCore.cpp.
                            Line https://github.com/mysensors/MySensors/blob/development/core/MySensorsCore.cpp#L407 is replaced with:

                            	else if (type == I_SIGNING_PRESENTATION) {
                            	}
                            	else return false;
                            

                            The message dump now looks like this:

                            2250 TSF:MSG:SEND,3-3-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=6,l=2,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:0100
                            2269 TSF:MSG:READ,0-0-3,s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=6,l=2,sg=0:0100
                            2331 TSF:MSG:SEND,3-3-0-0,s=255,c=0,t=17,pt=0,l=10,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:2.0.1-beta
                            2441 TSF:MSG:SEND,3-3-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=6,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:0
                            

                            At the API description page https://www.mysensors.org/download/serial_api_20 seems to be another error.
                            For the internal message t=15 the name description

                            I_REQUEST_SIGNING 	15 	Used between sensors when initialting signing.
                            

                            should be changed to

                            I_SIGNING_PRESENTATION 	15 	Provides signing related preferences.
                            

                            This I think is relevant both for the master and the development branch.

                            AnticimexA Offline
                            AnticimexA Offline
                            Anticimex
                            Contest Winner
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #15

                            @jpaulin thanks for the updates. I will have a look at making a pr when I get opportunity. @hek does the documentation issue sound familiar? ;)

                            Do you feel secure today? No? Start requiring some signatures and feel better tomorrow ;)

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • J jpaulin

                              @Anticimex
                              I don't know how to file a pull request, so I put the test results here.

                              Modified as follows to remove the preprocessor condition at: https://github.com/mysensors/MySensors/blob/development/core/MySigning.cpp#L154-L160

                              // #if defined(MY_SIGNING_FEATURE)
                                  // If we do support signing, wait for the gateway to tell us how it prefer us to transmit our messages
                                  if (destination == GATEWAY_ADDRESS) {
                              	    SIGN_DEBUG(PSTR("Waiting for GW to send signing preferences...\n"));
                              	    wait(2000, C_INTERNAL, I_SIGNING_PRESENTATION);
                              }
                              // #endif
                              

                              solves the issue.

                              At the same time the internal message received from the gateway seems to be erroneously transferred to the receive() function in a sketch. Adding to the sketch

                              void receive(const MyMessage &message) {
                                  Serial.println("something came in");
                              }
                              

                              gets the message dump:

                              2310 TSF:MSG:SEND,3-3-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=6,l=2,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:0100
                              2332 TSF:MSG:READ,0-0-3,s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=6,l=2,sg=0:0100
                              something came in
                              2409 TSF:MSG:SEND,3-3-0-0,s=255,c=0,t=17,pt=0,l=10,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:2.0.1-beta
                              2496 TSF:MSG:SEND,3-3-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=6,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:0
                              

                              To solve this I made the following change to _processInternalMessages(void) in MySensorsCore.cpp.
                              Line https://github.com/mysensors/MySensors/blob/development/core/MySensorsCore.cpp#L407 is replaced with:

                              	else if (type == I_SIGNING_PRESENTATION) {
                              	}
                              	else return false;
                              

                              The message dump now looks like this:

                              2250 TSF:MSG:SEND,3-3-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=6,l=2,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:0100
                              2269 TSF:MSG:READ,0-0-3,s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=6,l=2,sg=0:0100
                              2331 TSF:MSG:SEND,3-3-0-0,s=255,c=0,t=17,pt=0,l=10,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:2.0.1-beta
                              2441 TSF:MSG:SEND,3-3-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=6,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:0
                              

                              At the API description page https://www.mysensors.org/download/serial_api_20 seems to be another error.
                              For the internal message t=15 the name description

                              I_REQUEST_SIGNING 	15 	Used between sensors when initialting signing.
                              

                              should be changed to

                              I_SIGNING_PRESENTATION 	15 	Provides signing related preferences.
                              

                              This I think is relevant both for the master and the development branch.

                              AnticimexA Offline
                              AnticimexA Offline
                              Anticimex
                              Contest Winner
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #16

                              @jpaulin I have made a pull request. My solution differs slightly from your as the I_SIGNING_PRESENTATION should never reach the _processInternalMessages function. I do however not have the ability to test so I would appreciate if you could test the PR for me?
                              Thanks for finding and pointing out the flaws! :D

                              Do you feel secure today? No? Start requiring some signatures and feel better tomorrow ;)

                              J 1 Reply Last reply
                              3
                              • AnticimexA Anticimex

                                @jpaulin I have made a pull request. My solution differs slightly from your as the I_SIGNING_PRESENTATION should never reach the _processInternalMessages function. I do however not have the ability to test so I would appreciate if you could test the PR for me?
                                Thanks for finding and pointing out the flaws! :D

                                J Offline
                                J Offline
                                jpaulin
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #17

                                @Anticimex
                                I updated my node and GW with your pull request and made some basic tests and it seems to work ok with my sketch. I added MY_DEBUG_VERBOSE_SIGNING and got the following messages.

                                From the node:

                                2205 TSM:READY
                                2220 TSF:MSG:SEND,3-3-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=6,l=2,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:0100
                                2226 Waiting for GW to send signing preferences...
                                2280 TSF:MSG:READ,0-0-3,s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=6,l=2,sg=0:0100
                                2285 Received signing presentation, but signing is not supported (message ignored)
                                2349 TSF:MSG:SEND,3-3-0-0,s=255,c=0,t=17,pt=0,l=10,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:2.0.1-beta
                                2450 TSF:MSG:SEND,3-3-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=6,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:0
                                

                                From the GW:

                                0;255;3;0;9;TSF:MSG:PINGED,ID=3,HP=1
                                0;255;3;0;9;TSF:MSG:SEND,0-0-3-3,s=255,c=3,t=25,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:1
                                0;255;3;0;9;TSF:MSG:READ,3-3-0,s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=6,l=2,sg=0:0100
                                0;255;3;0;9;Informing node 3 that we do not require signatures because we do not support it
                                0;255;3;0;9;TSF:MSG:SEND,0-0-3-3,s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=6,l=2,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:0100
                                0;255;3;0;9;TSF:MSG:READ,3-3-0,s=255,c=0,t=17,pt=0,l=10,sg=0:2.0.1-beta
                                0;255;3;0;9;Sending message on topic: my_RFM69_gw1-out/3/255/0/0/17
                                0;255;3;0;9;TSF:MSG:READ,3-3-0,s=255,c=3,t=6,pt=1,l=1,sg=0:0
                                

                                Do you need some more testing?

                                AnticimexA 1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • J jpaulin

                                  @Anticimex
                                  I updated my node and GW with your pull request and made some basic tests and it seems to work ok with my sketch. I added MY_DEBUG_VERBOSE_SIGNING and got the following messages.

                                  From the node:

                                  2205 TSM:READY
                                  2220 TSF:MSG:SEND,3-3-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=6,l=2,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:0100
                                  2226 Waiting for GW to send signing preferences...
                                  2280 TSF:MSG:READ,0-0-3,s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=6,l=2,sg=0:0100
                                  2285 Received signing presentation, but signing is not supported (message ignored)
                                  2349 TSF:MSG:SEND,3-3-0-0,s=255,c=0,t=17,pt=0,l=10,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:2.0.1-beta
                                  2450 TSF:MSG:SEND,3-3-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=6,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:0
                                  

                                  From the GW:

                                  0;255;3;0;9;TSF:MSG:PINGED,ID=3,HP=1
                                  0;255;3;0;9;TSF:MSG:SEND,0-0-3-3,s=255,c=3,t=25,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:1
                                  0;255;3;0;9;TSF:MSG:READ,3-3-0,s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=6,l=2,sg=0:0100
                                  0;255;3;0;9;Informing node 3 that we do not require signatures because we do not support it
                                  0;255;3;0;9;TSF:MSG:SEND,0-0-3-3,s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=6,l=2,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:0100
                                  0;255;3;0;9;TSF:MSG:READ,3-3-0,s=255,c=0,t=17,pt=0,l=10,sg=0:2.0.1-beta
                                  0;255;3;0;9;Sending message on topic: my_RFM69_gw1-out/3/255/0/0/17
                                  0;255;3;0;9;TSF:MSG:READ,3-3-0,s=255,c=3,t=6,pt=1,l=1,sg=0:0
                                  

                                  Do you need some more testing?

                                  AnticimexA Offline
                                  AnticimexA Offline
                                  Anticimex
                                  Contest Winner
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #18

                                  @jpaulin thanks for testing. The change should have little effect for people using signing. The issue is for people who does not use it as the node did not wait for a gw response in that case.

                                  Do you feel secure today? No? Start requiring some signatures and feel better tomorrow ;)

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • korttomaK Offline
                                    korttomaK Offline
                                    korttoma
                                    Hero Member
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #19

                                    tried the latest development branch on my test system and the results are good so far. Now I just need to update my "real" system also. Thanks to everyone that participated in solving this!!

                                    • Tomas
                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    1
                                    • korttomaK Offline
                                      korttomaK Offline
                                      korttoma
                                      Hero Member
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #20

                                      Updated now also 2 nodes in my "real" system and both now successfully reported Lib version. I did not update the GW. Maybe it is safe to say that the Lib reporting problem is solved now.

                                      Now I will try to look in to the sofSerial RFM69 solution that @scalz is working on, do you have any eta on when you will try to include our solution in the official MySensors development branch?
                                      Any recommendations for the wiring of an W5100/RFM69 Gateway?

                                      • Tomas
                                      J 1 Reply Last reply
                                      1
                                      • scalzS Offline
                                        scalzS Offline
                                        scalz
                                        Hardware Contributor
                                        wrote on last edited by scalz
                                        #21

                                        i have removed my stuff for the moment..
                                        for integration in mysensors, it's coreteam work in progress, thx to @Tekka ;)
                                        Once, someone smart told me that 1+1=3, quite true :) and with Tekka i think we can say = 4 ahah
                                        So for an eta.., i prefer not saying anything lol, just i'm back on this for the week, i was playing with other stuff..

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • korttomaK korttoma

                                          Updated now also 2 nodes in my "real" system and both now successfully reported Lib version. I did not update the GW. Maybe it is safe to say that the Lib reporting problem is solved now.

                                          Now I will try to look in to the sofSerial RFM69 solution that @scalz is working on, do you have any eta on when you will try to include our solution in the official MySensors development branch?
                                          Any recommendations for the wiring of an W5100/RFM69 Gateway?

                                          J Offline
                                          J Offline
                                          jpaulin
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #22

                                          @korttoma I have an up and running RFM69 GW with W5100 (actually a W5500, but it's the same). I'm not using softSerial in my setup. With this it is possible to integrate with eg. Moteino or Anarduino, which comes with the radio chip preinstalled on the Arduino compatible boards. But a standard arduino with a separate chip would work as well (lower price). The GW-RFM69 has been stable and flawless, as far as I can see, for quite some time. The SPI for the RFM69 and W5500 uses the following pins in my setup.

                                          RFM69W:

                                          • SCK = 13
                                          • MISO = 12
                                          • MOSI = 11
                                          • CS = 10
                                          • IRQ = 2

                                          W5500:

                                          • SCK = 13
                                          • MISO = 12
                                          • MOSI = 11
                                          • CS = 7

                                          I'll try to share wire diagrams and software setup later. I had to do some tweakings in the ethernet.h file to make it work.

                                          korttomaK 1 Reply Last reply
                                          1
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          9

                                          Online

                                          11.7k

                                          Users

                                          11.2k

                                          Topics

                                          113.0k

                                          Posts


                                          Copyright 2019 TBD   |   Forum Guidelines   |   Privacy Policy   |   Terms of Service
                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • MySensors
                                          • OpenHardware.io
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular