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

Troubleshooting SoftDevice assertion

Hello, I am working on an nRF52 project that uses the SoftDevice S132 v3.0.0. The system supports BLE observer, BLE central, and ESB functions. BLE central and observer work simultaneously, and BLE central and ESB work simultaneously. However when I try to run all three of these functions simultaneously I get a SoftDevice assertion at PC=0x00011150. With a short scan interval for the observer, the crash occurs immediately, but with a longer scan interval it takes a few seconds to crash. So I assume it's a timing problem.

Is there any information available about why this specific SoftDevice assertion occurs, that I could use to start figuring out how to troubleshoot this? Thanks, Paolo

Parents
  • There are no flash operations executing while I am testing. I haven't tried modifying the BLE+ESB example yet.

    It looks like it's definitely a timing issue. If I set both the connection interval and scan interval to 250ms with a 60ms scan interval, it seems to work. But If I change the scan interval from 250ms to 249.375ms (so that a scan event and connection event will eventually collide) it will eventually crash. If I change the scan interval to 248.75ms, the collision and crash happens sooner. I haven't done enough testing yet to know if setting the scan and connection intervals equal really fixes the problem, or if it just makes it much less likely to occur.

Reply
  • There are no flash operations executing while I am testing. I haven't tried modifying the BLE+ESB example yet.

    It looks like it's definitely a timing issue. If I set both the connection interval and scan interval to 250ms with a 60ms scan interval, it seems to work. But If I change the scan interval from 250ms to 249.375ms (so that a scan event and connection event will eventually collide) it will eventually crash. If I change the scan interval to 248.75ms, the collision and crash happens sooner. I haven't done enough testing yet to know if setting the scan and connection intervals equal really fixes the problem, or if it just makes it much less likely to occur.

Children
No Data
Related