Understanding peripheral ports and pins

[Ingfu]

Hi,

I still have problems understanding the port and pin assignment for peripherals on the nrf54L15.

I need up to three SPIM, one UART and one TWI. That should work, right?

So my only option would be

1x SPIM/UART on P2 ("dedicated pins)"

1x SPIM/UART on P0

2x SPIM/UART on P1

1x TWI on P1?

For TWI, the data sheets (p.633) says "Use GPIO port P1, or dedicated pins on P2", but it does not state, which pins on P2 are dedicated for TWIM.

[Simonr]

I updated my previous reply to reflect this latest update as well:

This is a documentation error that will be fixed in future nRF54L15 datasheet versions. There is no TWIM/TWIS on P2 and the text in the instantiation table will be fixed to represent this.

[vielleicht]

While getting my new PCBA to run, I now found a not working TWIM on port 2. While I'm able to exclude errors in software (I have a DK running and working properly), I talked to ChatGPT about other errors. Now I found this post and the issue with the documentation error. Why isn't there a proper documentation for this behavior after two months? A good place would be: https://docs.nordicsemi.com/bundle/ps_nrf54L15/page/twim.html#ariaid-title8

[Simonr]

Hi Philipp

I'm sorry that this is taking some time, but AFAIK this is scheduled for the v1.0 release of the nRF54L15 datasheet. Please contact the regional sales manager of your area to get a roadmap/timeline on this.

Best regards,

Simon

[vielleicht]

But, why isn't there a notice on the online datasheet? A short "caution, changes are pending, see post 532012" would have been so helpful before spending money on the PCBAs.

[Simonr]

I understand your frustration, and I'll see if we can do something like this for datasheets in the future. I think the key here is that the current documentation is in the "preliminary datasheet" stage, and not in the full release version yet, so the datasheet is subject to change until a full release datasheet is available.

Best regards,

Simon

[vielleicht]

Hi Simon,

Thanks for clarifying the documentation issue. It’s great to see accurate corrections being made!

This situation highlights a broader opportunity: Would it be possible to create stronger links between forum threads like this one — which contain critical clarifications or issue confirmations — and the official documentation (such as the datasheet or errata)?

In this case, a simple reference in the (online version of the) datasheet to an open support thread (or vice versa) could save users significant time and confusion. More generally, mapping support insights directly to documentation would:

• Improve discoverability of known issues and fixes.

• Reduce repetitive support inquiries.

• Help keep field engineers, developers, and new users aligned with the latest validated information.

Could you advocate internally for such a practice — either as annotations in the datasheets or as part of a searchable issue index? It would be a relatively small change with a potentially big impact for the developer community.

Thanks again for your support and responsiveness!

Best regards,
Philipp

[Simonr]

Hey again Philipp

I'll definitely forward the suggestion to the right people. But this won't be a feature you should hold your breath for I think, as we try to keep the documentation separate/standalone AFAIK.

Best regards,

Simon