RE: S8 Coded PHY Instability: Unknown Connection ID (0x02) and Link Layer Response Timeout (0x22) at RSSI ≈−81 dBm and beyond

Amanda Hsieh — Thu, 04 Dec 2025 20:10:33 GMT

It would slightly increase power consumption, but it is usually a worthy trade-off for connection stability.

RE: S8 Coded PHY Instability: Unknown Connection ID (0x02) and Link Layer Response Timeout (0x22) at RSSI ≈−81 dBm and beyond

Aditya Bhat Handadi — Thu, 04 Dec 2025 17:43:09 GMT

Hi Amanda,

Thank you so much for pointing me to the CONFIG_CLOCK_CONTROL_NRF_K32SRC configuration.

This was a huge breakthrough! You are a savior! Our previous setting was $50 ppm$ (CONFIG_CLOCK_CONTROL_NRF_K32SRC_50PPM). By setting the $Low$ $Frequency$ $Clock$ $Source$ ( $LFXO$ ) tolerance to $150 ppm$ , we completely solved the connection stability issues we were seeing indoors! However, the outdoor tests are still pending.

The $0x02$ $HCI$ errors are gone. This confirms that with the previous $50 ppm$ setting, the clock drift was just too severe for the slower, longer $S8$ $Coded$ $PHY$ connection events, causing the $Link$ $Layer$ to fail.

Are there any potential side effects of using CONFIG_CLOCK_CONTROL_NRF_K32SRC_150PPM over the stricter CONFIG_CLOCK_CONTROL_NRF_K32SRC_50PPM? Specifically, should we be concerned about increased power consumption or reduced timing accuracy in other parts of the application?

Cheers,
Aditya

RE: S8 Coded PHY Instability: Unknown Connection ID (0x02) and Link Layer Response Timeout (0x22) at RSSI ≈−81 dBm and beyond

Amanda Hsieh — Wed, 03 Dec 2025 18:02:17 GMT

Hi,

You can check out this post.

Regards,
Amanda H.