This post is older than 2 years and might not be relevant anymore
More Info: Consider searching for newer posts

Compatibity of softdevice S132v2.0.0 and/or SDK11.0.0 with Engineering Rev B?

Does softdevice S132v2.0.0 and/or SDK11.0.0 support Engineering Rev B?

  • According to documentation, Engineering Rev B is supported, but has to implement workaround...

    Compatibility: The SoftDevices that are supported in this SDK are not compatible out-of-the-box with nRF52 Engineering A and Engineering B (the IC revisions present on all versions of PCA10036 and on PCA10040 v0.9.0). However, you can use the latest SoftDevices on Engineering A and B nRF52 chips for development purposes if you implement the workaround for anomaly 73 (TIMER: Event lost, see infocenter.nordicsemi.com/.../errata.html).

  • There are few erratas in Engineering RevB(kits given out in GTT) that has been fixed in RevC

    To see the differences you can see the documents listed here

    S132V2.0.0 is officially being made and tested on RevC silicon. We recommend customers to use the final silicon for developing their products and not rely on an old silicon versions for development. However, the S132 v2.0 will work on “Engineering B” silicon but not in a reliable and a stable manner.

    The Erratum 73 TIMER: Event lost which was present in RevB was fixed in RevC silicon. And S132v2.0.0 has removed the workaround needed for it as it is officially supporting only RevC silicon.

    Does this mean that all of you who have RevB cannot use S132v2.0.0 and SDK11?

    The answer for this is not straight forward. For all those who are making their development using RevB can still use it with the above mentioned versions of softdevice and SDK if the workaround for this Erratum 73 is applied as described in the Errata document for "Engineering B". If the workaround is not applied, the SoftDevice may occasionally trigger a fault (assert) due to missing events from the hardware when running on this chip revision. This assert will then have to be handled by the application’s assert handler. (This Erratum also affects the application itself in the same way.) Using this workaround will effect power efficiency.

    Why was this workaround removed from softdevice?

    Note that the workaround impacts the power consumption, so we do recommend to use RevB only for development and if you need further power efficiency with latest releases then you need to use latest revision of silicon.

  • Thanks Wojtek ... you were faster in answering...

  • I see, i answered to placeholder question :D I should have checked who asked :D

  • I am very very glad that you answered, it shows the energy in this forum and helping mood from experienced users like you. I accept your answer

Related