sd_flash_write() cause NRF_FAULT_ID_SD_ASSERT

Hi,

I have run into an issue with nrf52840 on pca10056 v1.0.0 board. The softdevice is SD v6.1.0. It seems to be a hardfault which cause a reset when I tried to call sd_flash_write(), sd_flash_page_erase() is OK though. The address and buffer is 4 byte aligned, the number of word is 1024.

Following the parameter of the callback error that Softdevice invoked

  • id = 1 (NRF_FAULT_ID_SD_ASSERT)
  • pc= 0x00014A3A
  • info = 0x00

if SD is not enable, there will be no problems at all. Strange things is the very same code run without issue on nrf52832 S132 v6.1.0.

I am appreciated if anyone could provide a hint why SD assert at that pc location.

Thanks in advance

Parents Reply Children
  • Hi, following up, has this been fixed in 7.0.x? In the 7.0.0 Release Notes, I see:

    The time scheduled for a flash write or flash page erase using sd_flash_write or sd_flash_page_erase APIs on nRF52811 will be longer than required and the same as for nRF52832.

    And in 7.0.1, I see:

    Fixed an issue where the time scheduled for a flash write or flash page erase using sd_flash_write or sd_flash_page_erase APIs on nRF52811 will be longer than required and the same as for nRF52832 (DRGN-12539)

    Perhaps is this implying the scheduled time was lengthened in 7.0.0 to allow a full page write (and made more precise in 7.0.1), but that would be a guess.

  • Hi,

    The statements you refer to relate to updates that have also impacted the issue with writing large buffers to nRF52840, but you should not assume that the issue is reliably fixed. The next major version of S140 will incorporate a proper fix.

  • Hi, Einar.

    I'm suffering from this issue too though my buffer size is 512(bytes).

    1. Does "DRGN-12539" affect only "LARGE buffers"?

    I'm suspecting that the time scheduled for "sd_flash_write(p_dst, p_src, size)" is calculated according to the "size" in its arguments. Isn't it?

    If so, the real time spent can be larger than expected(calculated) irrespective of size(i.e. buffer is LARGE or not).

    2. Please let me know the detailed mechanism which softdevice is using to estimate the required time.

    3. If this issue is not reliable fixed even in 7.0.1 and will be fixed in next MAJOR version, would it be 8.x?

  • Hi,

    1. This is not the exact same issue as DRGN-12539. The fix there in 7.0.1 is for erase operations only, not for write operations.

    2. This is a fixed number that is calculated beforehand and hardcoded in the SoftDevice, and the timeout is supposed to be set to after the maximum write duration. But the bug discussed in this thread is because this timeout is set too low.

    3. It is not fixed in 7.0.1. It will most likely be fixed in the next major SoftDevice release, but I cannot promise anything.

Related