• State Verified Answer
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 8 replies
  • Subscribers 62 subscribers
  • Views 4400 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Attachments (0)
Nordic Case Info
  • Case ID: 112411
Options
This post is older than 2 years and might not be relevant anymore
More Info: Consider searching for newer posts
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

POFCON and s132

AmbystomaLabs

We successfully used the pofcon on a 51822 based design using S110 ver 7 to indicate a low batter condition to the user. However, we are moving to 52832 (currently QFAA-BA0) running s132 from 11.0.0.2 and the power failure function does not seem to work. All other aspects of our code are working fine with the exception of power failure.

In our code the pofcon is both turned on and the threshold set and we have registered for system events.

I have even resorted to using sd_evt_get in the main do loop to see if the NRF_EVT_POWER_FAILURE_WARNING event is ever received. Only NRF_ERROR_NOT_FOUND is ever returned for a variety of input voltages.

Is there some subtle difference between s110 and s132 in using the pofcon that we are missing? Or, is there something we missed in the errata that this function does not work yet?

Parents
  • 0

    This is probably just ported from the nRF51. I will report this internally. Generally you should not use the NRF_POWER register directly as it is restricted by the SoftDevice, see here.

  • 0 in reply to Ole Bauck

    In theory 2.0.1 only has bug fixes. API implementations are supposed to be the same. So, you should be able to use 2.0.1 without changes. Also, one fix that might be of interest had to do with power consumption. So, you should consider just moving to 2.0.1.

    Plus the fix of writing to the register directly for 2.0 was difficult since you can't then alter POF after you enable the SD. This was a problem for us since I wanted a two tiered approach to low battery detection. Ultimately I ended up using the ADC on an hourly basis to monitor the battery level.

Reply
  • 0 in reply to Ole Bauck

    In theory 2.0.1 only has bug fixes. API implementations are supposed to be the same. So, you should be able to use 2.0.1 without changes. Also, one fix that might be of interest had to do with power consumption. So, you should consider just moving to 2.0.1.

    Plus the fix of writing to the register directly for 2.0 was difficult since you can't then alter POF after you enable the SD. This was a problem for us since I wanted a two tiered approach to low battery detection. Ultimately I ended up using the ADC on an hourly basis to monitor the battery level.

Children
No Data
Related