Zigbee: contiki + cc2530/2538/2630 ? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: savril
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 10:06:30 pm
content: Hello,I'm looking for a Zigbee platform for hobby use.I know Zigbee isn't the simpliest platform but I want to make an outdoor solar powered sensor, so with low power requirement.For the software device-side, I was looking for a solution without commercial tools. Contiki OS seem the best shot to have a Zigbee stack with community support.For the device, I'm looking for ready made modules which are easily available for a reasonable price. TI chips seems the easiest to get in China :TI cc253013€84 for 5, 8051 µC, supported by contikihttps://fr.aliexpress.com/item/1-pcs-CC2530-Core-Board-CC2530F256-2-4G-4dBm-2-5mW-Wireless-Transceiver-Module-Network-Zigbee/32783203718.html?spm=a2g0s.8937460.0.0.uviaWbTI cc253863,98€ by 5, ARM, with better support apparently by contikihttps://fr.aliexpress.com/item/5pcslot-CC2538-Module-New-Upgrade-Revision-SAM-IPX-Onboard-Antenna/32667491113.html?spm=a2g0s.8937460.0.0.uviaWbTI cc263042,23€ by 5, ARM, ultra low power, not officially supported by contikihttps://fr.aliexpress.com/item/SZ9RH-CC2630-RHB-Zigbee-wireless-module/32666609004.html?spm=a2g0s.8937460.0.0.uviaWbOn the price side, the cc2530 win the hobby contest. But it seem that it will be less and less supported in the future (it's my impression). Is it a end of line product?I'm also not all familiar with 8051 and a little scared of it.The cc2630 seem perfect for my application but I expect more problems with Contiki.The cc2538 would be the safer option, given it does not consume much more than the cc2630 but is the most expensive option.What would you choose ?Thanks for your help.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2017, 10:49:39 pm
content: Contiki is not ZigBee. It is 6LowPAN. But if you don't need compatibility with existing devices, then it won't make any difference.6LowPAN is the base for ZigBee IP, as well. But non of this is really compatible, and ZigBee IP is not a thing that actually works.

author: savril
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2017, 05:48:02 pm
content: Argh. I haven't noticed the difference between Zigbee and Zigbee IP.Contiki is now out of question as I was planning to implement the Application profiles.The alternative stack would be the one from TI :http://www.ti.com/tool/Z-STACKBut it work only with IAR (precompiled binaries) and there's no way I can invest in IAR for hobby use.The alternative open source frameworks are outdated (> 4 years).So I think there's no way to use ZigBee in hobby projects.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2017, 05:51:04 pm
content: ZigBee is way too complicated and messed up for hobby. Atmel/Microchip have ZigBee stack that works with GCC, but I think it is only available on request after the acquisition.But you really don't want to get involved with ZigBee if you don't have to. It would be a huge waste of time.

author: Dumont
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: September 29, 2017, 08:01:10 pm
content: There are XBee modules which do Zigbeehttps://www.digikey.com/short/q7jv0b.There is an open source libraryhttps://github.com/digidotcom/xbee_ansic_librarythat facilitates creating a ZCL implementation on your product as well.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2017, 08:10:11 pm
content: Why would anyone use the Zigbee radio channel in 2017? There are Zigbee apps protocols, which make sense running over various IP channels, but the actual radio protocol is pretty much dead.

author: savril
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2017, 11:31:20 pm
content: Quote from: ataradov on September 29, 2017, 05:51:04 pmYes, I agree Zigbee is not simple to mess with. But I'm an engineer in IT and I'm not scared about software complexity. This project would not be something I could get over the week-end but something it will take me months to complete. I do it mostly for the challenge more than getting things done. I'm an engineer, and I like to over-engineer as a result.Quote from: Dumont on September 29, 2017, 08:01:10 pmYes I know about XBee solutions. But I don't like this solutions when you rely on some other work and don't know how it work end to end. I do electronics more for a quest of knowledge and master than the pleasure to do things. I like when it end up with my own PCB and case, almost like a professional solution.If I would like just to do things I would surely use their work.Quote from: coppice on September 29, 2017, 08:10:11 pmSorry, I don't understand what you mean. Do you mean using directly the Zigbee radio for proprietary protocol is dead and Application Profiles are the way to go ? If so, I totaly agree with you. Application Profiles seem what will revive Zigbee. And I think it could set it as the home standard for LAN IoT.I wanted to experiment with Zigbee for its low power but also to make things which would be easily compatible with any Zigbee compliant solution. For the moment, I'm more aimed at an OpenHab raspberry pi solution.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2017, 11:42:31 pm
content: Quote from: savril on September 29, 2017, 11:31:20 pmIt is not about your ability to do things. There are no open source stacks, anything you will get from an MCU vendor is going to be a closed library.And you will run up against problems with this library, and there will be no way for you to solve this. Support resources on this kind of thing are slim, if you are not buying millions of devices.Quote from: savril on September 29, 2017, 11:31:20 pmXbee makes modules, you can put then into a case. And in case of ZLL it also provides you with ability to join real ZLL networks without certification (although that key was leaked long time ago.)Quote from: savril on September 29, 2017, 11:31:20 pmHa, "any". No such thing in ZigBee, unless you are oblivious and totally believe marketing powerpoints. Typically you will get multiple incompatible builds for different profiles.