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

Time_stamping_value?

Hi Nordic Devzone,

First i want to make sure that if the clock being used by softdevice is the LFCLK (32kHz) and its counter register is 24bits ? and which prescaler is being used? because I want to send the local time (clock value ) from one device to another using Bluetooth mesh connectivity, but when i'm reading the time of the receive message from the ( const access_message_rx_t * p_message) the value of timestamp is greater than 24 bits value actually its a 32bit value , so if the counter register in the LFCLK is 24 bits how would it be possible to count up to 32 bits value ? does it mean that the clock begin used for time stamping the receive messages is different than the clock used by softdevice ? And what is the best way to keep track of time while using the softdevice ?

Thank you in advance

Parents
  • Hi MMG,

    The timestamp you see in access_message_rx_t is the timestamp when the packet is received. It's a local timestamp counting from the start of current timeslot. Have a look at radio_handle_end_event() in scanner.c

    And note that we use TIMER0 to count time, and it's 32bit. Not the 24bit RTC.

    Currently we have no use of the timestamp in the receive package yet.

  • That makes more sense! With another timer there is no need to consider the RTC0. Thank you for the blog post! I hadn't paid that much attention to it before but it looks you had very good accuracy, maybe I will try to include something similar.

    The synchronization doesn't have to be very accurate, but I was thinking of one node being the master node, and control the other nodes (slave nodes) time. Possibly with a configuration phase that would run every now and then that would check the drift and the initial offset. Most likely it wouldn't be very accurate since there would be a lot of non-deterministic behaviour. But at least it will not reset in the middle which what I was worried about.

    Thanks once again for all your help! It was very educational to receive complete answers on how the time functionality on the device worked!

Reply
  • That makes more sense! With another timer there is no need to consider the RTC0. Thank you for the blog post! I hadn't paid that much attention to it before but it looks you had very good accuracy, maybe I will try to include something similar.

    The synchronization doesn't have to be very accurate, but I was thinking of one node being the master node, and control the other nodes (slave nodes) time. Possibly with a configuration phase that would run every now and then that would check the drift and the initial offset. Most likely it wouldn't be very accurate since there would be a lot of non-deterministic behaviour. But at least it will not reset in the middle which what I was worried about.

    Thanks once again for all your help! It was very educational to receive complete answers on how the time functionality on the device worked!

Children
No Data
Related