Skip to content

drivers: ieee802154: telink: Update B9X & TLX IEEE802.15.4 - #632

Merged
pulin1103 merged 1 commit into
developfrom
ot_update
Oct 30, 2025
Merged

pulin1103 merged 1 commit into
developfrom
ot_update

Conversation

@andriy-bilynskyy

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator
  • Add CSL receiver functionality for B9X
  • Increment frame counter before sending instead of after ACK

@pulin1103

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

LGTM
I have a suggestion: the ACK with frame counter should also increment the frame counter before tlx/b9x_mac_keys_frame_cnt_get.
Otherwise, the next packet's frame counter will be incremented by 2 instead of 1.
One more question: Is it okay for the frame counter to start from 1?

- Add CSL receiver functionality for B9X
- Increment frame counter before sending instead of after ACK

Co-authored-by: Zhenghuan Zhang <zhenghuan.zhang@telink-semi.com>

Signed-off-by: Andrii Bilynskyi <andrii.bilynskyi@telink-semi.com>
@andriy-bilynskyy

andriy-bilynskyy commented Oct 29, 2025 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

LGTM I have a suggestion: the ACK with frame counter should also increment the frame counter before tlx/b9x_mac_keys_frame_cnt_get. Otherwise, the next packet's frame counter will be incremented by 2 instead of 1. One more question: Is it okay for the frame counter to start from 1?

Good point. Added increment before preparing ACK data.
Additionally fixed CSL phase in ACK frames was zero always since updated in local variable.
| The sender must never reuse the same frame counter value for two different frames with the same key.
Incrementing frame counter doesn't lead to issues - that's the reason why it present in frame.
Loosing one frame (as result incrementing frame counter to 2) shouldn't destroy feature encryption. The important is just not use same frame counter for different frames.

@pulin1103 pulin1103 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It looks fine, and there’s no problem when compiling and testing the firmware.

@pulin1103
pulin1103 merged commit 4ff5294 into develop Oct 30, 2025
20 checks passed
@pulin1103
pulin1103 deleted the ot_update branch October 30, 2025 02:41
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants