IC rev vs compatibility table vs SD vs SDK

RE: IC rev vs compatibility table vs SD vs SDK

jeremie — Tue, 09 Aug 2016 08:17:28 GMT

ah ok! now I understand. the 0 is not mandatory. my confusion comes from that "Hx0" reads as a 1-letter + 2-digit (with 0 as the fixed second) e.g. H30, whereas Hx means 1-letter + 1 digit e.g. H2.

RE: IC rev vs compatibility table vs SD vs SDK

Øyvind Karlsen — Tue, 09 Aug 2016 07:15:44 GMT

As the annotation says "3) The x in the build code is 0..9 for production release."

RE: IC rev vs compatibility table vs SD vs SDK

jeremie — Tue, 09 Aug 2016 07:08:37 GMT

thx Øyvind. I was (and still am) confused about the doc referring to Hx0 and not Hx (where x=0..9). typo?

RE: IC rev vs compatibility table vs SD vs SDK

Øyvind Karlsen — Tue, 09 Aug 2016 06:14:03 GMT

Hi,

QFAAC0 is a rev 1 chip, QFAAH1 is a rev 3 chip. To save yourself a lot of headache I recommend that you use the rev 3 chip, and the latest SDK and SoftDevice. SDK 11 and SoftDevice S132.

Best regards,

Øyvind