NRF52 and MWU

RE: NRF52 and MWU

Kai — Thu, 06 Apr 2017 10:29:09 GMT

@Sigurd - Thank you for this. I'll have to continue on this some other way then.

RE: NRF52 and MWU

Sigurd — Thu, 06 Apr 2017 10:24:51 GMT

The reason why the peripheral is "restricted" and not "blocked" is more technical, and has to do with how the SoftDevice enforces access restrictions on the peripheral. The SoftDevice is not designed with application MWU usage in mind. If you try it out you may see that it appears to be working, but there are no guarantees for anything. There is not sufficient information in the SDS regarding MWU usage restrictions, and the existing information is somewhat misleading. I will add a request to update the information. I would not recommend trying to use the MWU when the SoftDevice is enabled. Sorry for the inconvenience

RE: NRF52 and MWU

Kai — Thu, 06 Apr 2017 05:25:23 GMT

@Sigurd - The table says the MWU is restricted, not blocked, and from the description of the restrictions those could be achieved by using one region protection. That would leave three unused and from what I've experimented now is that the #2 and #3 seem to be unused.

When I make a deliberate write violation to the area I want to protect I get a softdevice_fault_handler() call with id 1. Still not able to get that to go to the MWU handler. :(

RE: NRF52 and MWU

John — Wed, 05 Apr 2017 19:25:38 GMT

@Kai, be sure to follow the links under note 2 in the table @Sigurd points to. It explains a lot as to why there are not sd_mwu_xxxx functions.

RE: NRF52 and MWU

Sigurd — Wed, 05 Apr 2017 13:38:18 GMT

Hi,

When the SoftDevice is enabled the MWU should not be used by the application. You can see in the Peripheral protection and usage by SoftDevice table that you don't have open access to the MWU when the SoftDevice is enabled.