BOOTLOADER considers application is not valid

RE: BOOTLOADER considers application is not valid

Miguel — Wed, 31 Aug 2016 16:36:59 GMT

Hello Einar, I have found the following links that helped me a lot:

I am using 1 for my bootloader and 2 in my application. I now am facing with an issue to start DFU with this new bootloader. Do you have any idea to overcome this. Regards

RE: BOOTLOADER considers application is not valid

Miguel — Wed, 31 Aug 2016 10:50:55 GMT

I tried the DFU example together with the ble_app_hrs and the problem continues. The application is considered invalid.

RE: BOOTLOADER considers application is not valid

Miguel — Tue, 30 Aug 2016 15:37:58 GMT

If I set optimization level to -O0 an error occurs: bootloader_util.c:106:1: error: r7 cannot be used in asm here

RE: BOOTLOADER considers application is not valid

Miguel — Tue, 30 Aug 2016 10:58:37 GMT

One more thing, when the content of flash at 0x0003FC00 after flashing the SD and Bootloader is FF

RE: BOOTLOADER considers application is not valid

Miguel — Tue, 30 Aug 2016 09:14:32 GMT

I said it the wrong way, when executing bootloader_util_settings_get(&p_bootloader_settings) p_bootloader_settings-> bank_0 gives BANK_INVALID_APP. I tried with -Wall -O0 -g3, but had to change the FLASH origin to FLASH (rx) : ORIGIN = 0x3A000, LENGTH = 0x5C00 (and also in dfu_types.h). The problem still remains, no change at all. In flash my application is: FLASH (rx) : ORIGIN = 0x1b000, LENGTH = 0x10000

RE: BOOTLOADER considers application is not valid

Einar Thorsrud — Tue, 30 Aug 2016 06:10:14 GMT

Have you remembered to disable optimization (set -O0 in your Makefile instead of -O3)? The reason I ask is that bootloader_util_settings_get() do not return anything (it's return type is void), so it may be that you are debugging optimized code (which is not easy at all).

RE: BOOTLOADER considers application is not valid

Miguel — Mon, 29 Aug 2016 18:24:11 GMT

Hello Einar, and thanks again. I tried your suggestion and the result was: After calling bootloader_app_is_valid(), in bootloader_settings.c the function bootloader_util_settings_get always returns BANK_INVALID despite of using this:

uint8_t m_boot_settings[CODE_PAGE_SIZE] __attribute__ ((section(".bootloaderSettings"))) = {BANK_VALID_APP};

I don't understand this issue.

Thanks in advance

RE: BOOTLOADER considers application is not valid

Einar Thorsrud — Mon, 29 Aug 2016 06:06:30 GMT

Can you use a debugger to step through the bootloader_app_is_valid() and see where/why it returns false?

RE: BOOTLOADER considers application is not valid

Miguel — Fri, 26 Aug 2016 08:53:40 GMT

I already tried that but the problem remains. The application is always considered invalid by the bootloader.

RE: BOOTLOADER considers application is not valid

Einar Thorsrud — Fri, 26 Aug 2016 05:49:16 GMT

In order to set the application valid flag by default using GCC you should use this instead (in bootloader_settings.c):

uint8_t m_boot_settings[CODE_PAGE_SIZE] __attribute__ ((section(".bootloaderSettings"))) = {BANK_VALID_APP};

RE: BOOTLOADER considers application is not valid

Miguel — Thu, 25 Aug 2016 16:47:24 GMT

Hello Einar, thank you for your answer. I have written 1 to the 0x0003FC00 using the following command line: nrfjprog --memwr 0x00003FC00 --val 1. Yes you are right the applications works fine but with the softdevice. I am using GCC so your suggestion is not applicable in my case. In SDK 11 the line is:

uint8_t m_boot_settings[CODE_PAGE_SIZE] __attribute__ ((section(".bootloaderSettings")));

RE: BOOTLOADER considers application is not valid

Einar Thorsrud — Mon, 22 Aug 2016 09:37:34 GMT

You write that you have tried writing 0x00000001 to the bootloader settings address so it may be a dead end, but can you have written it to the correct address? You could do it in your application code as described in this post.

Another question: you write that your blinky applications works without a bootloader. I assume that is with the SoftDevice also flashed onto the device? Or does your application start at address 0, leaving no room for the SoftDevice?