Relationship between SDK and sotfDeivce

RE: Relationship between SDK and sotfDeivce

awneil — Wed, 12 Jun 2019 10:00:23 GMT

If that resolves your issue, please verify the answer:

RE: Relationship between SDK and sotfDeivce

takashina hiroki — Tue, 11 Jun 2019 23:17:33 GMT

I understood that the combination of "S132 SoftDevice v5.0.0" and "nRF SDK v15.3.0" is impossible.
Thank you for answer.

RE: Relationship between SDK and sotfDeivce

Amanda Hsieh — Tue, 11 Jun 2019 11:27:23 GMT

Hi,

According to nRF5 SDK v15.3.0 Release Notes:

This version of the SDK supports the following SoftDevices:

S112 SoftDevice v6.1.1 (API documentation)
S132 SoftDevice v6.1.1 (API documentation)
S140 SoftDevice v6.1.1 (API documentation)
S212 SoftDevice v6.1.1 (API documentation)
S312 SoftDevice v6.1.1 (API documentation)
S332 SoftDevice v6.1.1 (API documentation)
S340 SoftDevice v6.1.1 (API documentation)

Best regards,

Amanda

RE: Relationship between SDK and sotfDeivce

takashina hiroki — Mon, 10 Jun 2019 00:11:38 GMT

Thank you for answer.

I need to use S132 SoftDevice v5.0.0 due to hardware limitations.
The hardware is not approved for technical compliance unless it is S132 SoftDevice v5.0.0.

I want to use the sample project "ble_app_multirole_lesc".
nRF SDK v14.2.0 (S132 SoftDevice v5.0.0) does not operate as intended.
nRF SDK v15.3.0 (S132 SoftDevice v6.1.1) operates normally.

Therefore, I want to move with the combination of "S132 SoftDevice v5.0.0" and "nRF SDK v15.3.0".

RE: Relationship between SDK and sotfDeivce

awneil — Fri, 07 Jun 2019 07:29:56 GMT

Why would you want to do that?

As the name suggests, a change in the "Major" version number - eg, 5.x.x to 6.x.x - usually indicates a Major change; so they are unlikely to be compatible.