MPSL ASSERT: 112, 1617 on single board, suspect hardware

RE: MPSL ASSERT: 112, 1617 on single board, suspect hardware

Priyanka — Fri, 07 Mar 2025 09:22:08 GMT

Hi,

[quote user="anthony.asterisk"]it says the startup time must be less than 1.5mS.[/quote]

Yes, ~1.5ms, but we've made it configurable. https://github.com/nrfconnect/sdk-nrf/blob/e9fd9ca8783ee2a32e67813e591a7fe13986ef65/subsys/mpsl/init/Kconfig#L78

-Priyanka

RE: MPSL ASSERT: 112, 1617 on single board, suspect hardware

Anthony Ambuehl — Wed, 05 Mar 2025 16:37:59 GMT

On this page: https://docs.nordicsemi.com/bundle/ncs-latest/page/nrfxlib/mpsl/doc/clock.html

it says the startup time must be less than 1.5mS.

RE: MPSL ASSERT: 112, 1617 on single board, suspect hardware

Priyanka — Wed, 05 Mar 2025 09:21:16 GMT

Thank you for the updates. Looking into tis and will keep you updated.

-Priyanka

RE: MPSL ASSERT: 112, 1617 on single board, suspect hardware

Anthony Ambuehl — Wed, 05 Mar 2025 01:24:26 GMT

By measuring the time taken by clock_control_on I was able to differentiate between acceptable HFCLK modules and unacceptable modules.. eg modules that took longer than 1.5mS to start.

RE: MPSL ASSERT: 112, 1617 on single board, suspect hardware

Anthony Ambuehl — Tue, 04 Mar 2025 22:32:32 GMT

I also notice that if my mfg test code starts the HFCLK but does not turn it off, I no longer get the MPSL assertion. It seems possibly the failure is related to increased start up time exceeding some limit within MPSL.

I could measure the time for clock_control_on to complete and set a maximum threshold to match the MPSL library.

Can you tell me what startup time would be too high for MPSL ?

RE: MPSL ASSERT: 112, 1617 on single board, suspect hardware

Anthony Ambuehl — Tue, 04 Mar 2025 20:13:23 GMT

I created a test, but it is not showing a failure.

    //request HFCLK to be running
    int ret = clock_control_on(clock0, CLOCK_CONTROL_NRF_SUBSYS_HF);
    if (ret) {
        LOG_ERR("HF clock enable failed %d",ret);
    }
    nrf_clock_hfclk_t hfclk_src;
	clkstat = clock_control_get_status(clock0, CLOCK_CONTROL_NRF_SUBSYS_HF);
	running = nrf_clock_is_running(NRF_CLOCK, NRF_CLOCK_DOMAIN_HFCLK, &hfclk_src);
    if ((CLOCK_CONTROL_STATUS_ON != clkstat) || !running)
    {
        LOG_ERR("HF clock not running");
    }
    else if (NRF_CLOCK_HFCLK_HIGH_ACCURACY != hfclk_src)
    {
        LOG_ERR("HF clock wrong source %d",hfclk_src);
    } 
    else {
        ret =   clock_control_off(clock0, CLOCK_CONTROL_NRF_SUBSYS_HF);
        if (ret) {
            LOG_ERR("HF clock disable failed %d",ret);
        }
        else
        {
            LOG_INF("HF clock is working");
        }
    }

RE: MPSL ASSERT: 112, 1617 on single board, suspect hardware

Priyanka — Mon, 03 Mar 2025 10:55:43 GMT

HI Anthony,

I am discussing this with the team and will get back to you as soon as I hear from them. Also, were you able to re-check the soldering etc. that I had mentioned earlier?

-Priyanka

RE: MPSL ASSERT: 112, 1617 on single board, suspect hardware

Anthony Ambuehl — Thu, 27 Feb 2025 16:18:39 GMT

Is there a way I can make a specific test to enable the HFXO and check that it is ramped up? Maybe its under CONFIG_CLOCK_CONTROL?

We need this to diagnose root cause of failures in the manufacturing test. Currently it passes all tests but asserts, which leaves the manufacturing team confused.

RE: MPSL ASSERT: 112, 1617 on single board, suspect hardware

Priyanka — Thu, 27 Feb 2025 09:25:24 GMT

Hi Anthony,

The assert points to missing/not ramped-up HFXO for a radio event that requires it.

-Priyanka

RE: MPSL ASSERT: 112, 1617 on single board, suspect hardware

Anthony Ambuehl — Wed, 26 Feb 2025 23:00:07 GMT

could give any info on the MPSL assertion.. what do the number mean?

RE: MPSL ASSERT: 112, 1617 on single board, suspect hardware

Priyanka — Tue, 25 Feb 2025 09:32:45 GMT

Hi Anthony,

This must be a hardware related issue since you do not see this on other boards. Could be an issue with the 32MHz HFCLK, maybe the supply to this, or soldering round the crystal or the crystal itself. I would suggest you to examine the crystal and it's related components and it's surrounding/connected area on the PCB.

Regards,

Priyanka