Inconsistencies in Bluetooth Qualification Workspace

RE: Inconsistencies in Bluetooth Qualification Workspace

Sailor — Mon, 12 Aug 2024 12:47:35 GMT

Ok. Then I go for "no required testing" for the SIG, and our antenna measurements and RED testing (EN300328) should well cover the re-tests you mentioned.

Thanks for clearing that up!

Best regards

RE: Inconsistencies in Bluetooth Qualification Workspace

ketiljo — Mon, 12 Aug 2024 12:35:39 GMT

There are only so much that can change with the design, like output and frequency accuracy. Parameters like receiver blocking will not change as it's part of the chip design.

A re-test consists of output power, sensitivity, frequency accuracy and modulation characteristics, like this: devzone.nordicsemi.com/.../Anritsu-BLE-test-report-example.pdf

All other parameters are not affected by the design.

BLE testing is done conducted so the antenna is not a part of the test.

RE: Inconsistencies in Bluetooth Qualification Workspace

Sailor — Mon, 12 Aug 2024 11:31:01 GMT

By the way, what do you mean by a re-test, not a full test?

RE: Inconsistencies in Bluetooth Qualification Workspace

Sailor — Mon, 12 Aug 2024 06:03:57 GMT

Since we are qualifying an end product incorporating a nRF52832 SoC, not a module, I am quite sure we have to do the full RFPHY test since it is a test more for the hardware implementation and performance, not for the stack. If nothing has changed recently at the SIG, I have always been required in the past to do the full test.

RE: Inconsistencies in Bluetooth Qualification Workspace

ketiljo — Fri, 09 Aug 2024 12:59:08 GMT

Did you start with "no required testing"? RF-PHY is already tested so all it takes is a re-test to verify, not a full test.