SIG Qualification based on existing qualified NRF51822 with S130

RE: SIG Qualification based on existing qualified NRF51822 with S130

Andreas — Mon, 14 Oct 2019 12:20:15 GMT

Hi,

The RF-PHY tests are conducted (with a cable), not sure if there is any verification or similar of EIRP, but it might be that if you have proper characterization data of the antenna then you will be able to skip this test case. If you have adopted any services, these will have to be tested, I believe you can use the PTS tool for this.

Best regards,

Andreas

RE: SIG Qualification based on existing qualified NRF51822 with S130

Ron — Sun, 13 Oct 2019 08:58:33 GMT

Hey Andreas, your comments so far have been very helpful, I would very much appreciate you inputs on my last comment as well

Thanks!

RE: SIG Qualification based on existing qualified NRF51822 with S130

Ron — Tue, 01 Oct 2019 09:57:04 GMT

I am surprised to hear that adding my own Antenna will not require RF-PHY testing, because it does say

[quote userid="9102" url="~/f/nordic-q-a/52648/sig-qualification-based-on-existing-qualified-nrf51822-with-s130/212736"]Using another member organization’s qualified Bluetooth End-Product or Subsystem in your product without changes or additions to the Bluetooth capabilities[/quote]

Changing the Antenna is not "changes"? Also I was actually told specifically (by a regulatory expert, not from SIG) that changing the Antenna will require testing, But I am glad to hear this is not the case, I already have test results for my antenna, will sending it to them speed things up?

As for the software, Are you saying that there is nothing that my implementation would possibly do that will require me to go thought the testing path? (as long as I use the softdevice ofcourse)

I have received a replies for inquiry from "Bluetooth SIG Team" that suggest that using standard services such as "Device Information" and "Battery" services will, however, require testing."

This is the email reply from the Bluetooth SIG Team:

What do you make of this answer? Is there a way around it? that also said that they dont care about my custom services, only the standard services, why would that be?

Thank you again so much from your help!

RE: SIG Qualification based on existing qualified NRF51822 with S130

Andreas — Tue, 01 Oct 2019 08:27:28 GMT

Hi,

Required testing in this sense is that you test the entire 'Bluetooth Module' HW+Stack against the entire TCRL, which e.g. is what we do with our Softdevice releases.

The no required testing can be chosen if (from the BT SIG site):

Using another member organization’s qualified Bluetooth End-Product or Subsystem in your product without changes or additions to the Bluetooth capabilities
Purchasing a product manufactured by a third party and distributing it with your company’s name or logo
Creating combinations involving only qualified Bluetooth Subsystem Products and/or qualified Bluetooth End Products provided no design changes were made during the combination

As per the name, RF-PHY testing is not required and not a part of the 'no required testing path'. We just recommend that you do it separately to ensure you have replicated our reference design (which is the qualified end product) that change its Bluetooth capabilities. A poorly done HW design will not change the stack behaviour, but can/will change the physical performance of the radio, and to what degree it is compliant with RF-PHY requirements.

Best regards,

Andreas

RE: SIG Qualification based on existing qualified NRF51822 with S130

Ron — Mon, 30 Sep 2019 22:52:56 GMT

Hi Andreas,

I appreciate your answers,

[quote userid="9102" url="~/f/nordic-q-a/52648/sig-qualification-based-on-existing-qualified-nrf51822-with-s130/212459"]you should choose the different path: Qualification process with no required testing. 'Required testing' in this sense is a little ambiguous, I can understand the confusion[/quote]

This is indeed very confusing, could you please clarify further, I am going through testing anyway, even if I don't chose the 'required Testing' ?

what kind of tests? beside RF-Phy?

What is the difference between the testing in the two paths? if there are RF-Phy testing in both paths what is the difference or sense in that?

Have a great day and thanks again

RE: SIG Qualification based on existing qualified NRF51822 with S130

Andreas — Mon, 30 Sep 2019 07:57:50 GMT

Hi,

By referring to the end product QDID you inherit all the link-layer, GATT etc. listings, meaning these do not have to be tested or qualified. Using your own antenna does not change the stack behaviour, provided the PCB design is done properly and thus passes the RF-PHY tests. You should not test or qualify GATT.

With regards to your image, you should choose the different path: Qualification process with no required testing. 'Required testing' in this sense is a little ambiguous, I can understand the confusion.

[quote user="EranR"]I am not using LLACP at all, Do you happen to know how should I apply for qualification here since there is just options to state that I "use my own selection" or under Nordic's QDID..[/quote]

No, this is fine. As with all the other, use our end-product QDID only.

Best regards,

Andreas

RE: SIG Qualification based on existing qualified NRF51822 with S130

Ron — Fri, 27 Sep 2019 14:21:49 GMT

Hi Andreas,

Thank you for your response.

[quote userid="9102" url="~/f/nordic-q-a/52648/sig-qualification-based-on-existing-qualified-nrf51822-with-s130/212302"]If you refer to the end-product QDID you do not need to worry about the any component QDID[/quote]

That is the link to the deceleration details https://launchstudio.bluetooth.com/ListingDetails/14825 ,

It is for an 'end product', but what exactly do you mean by 'not to worry about component QDID', If I use my own custom Antenna I should test it, is that not part of creating a new QDID? or will I be testing while maintain Nordic's QDID?

Does that also goes for the GATT? testing but not qualifying?

[quote userid="9102" url="~/f/nordic-q-a/52648/sig-qualification-based-on-existing-qualified-nrf51822-with-s130/212302"]refer to our QDID, test RF-PHY and save the logs.[/quote]

Image below is part of the form on the SIG website (using launch studio) -"Qualification Project with required Testing", Do you know if I am to mark the RF-PHY and GATT checkbox as "my own" or under Nordic existing QDID

[quote userid="9102" url="~/f/nordic-q-a/52648/sig-qualification-based-on-existing-qualified-nrf51822-with-s130/212302"]If you have enabled this through configuring the Softdevice it is allowed[/quote]

I am not using LLACP at all, Do you happen to know how should I apply for qualification here since there is just options to state that I "use my own selection" or under Nordic's QDID..

Thanks again!

RE: SIG Qualification based on existing qualified NRF51822 with S130

Andreas — Fri, 27 Sep 2019 13:24:21 GMT

Hi,

If you refer to the end-product QDID you do not need to worry about the any component QDID.

[quote user=""]* since I use and added manufacturer specific data I assume I will have to qualify the GAP, but do I have to qualify the LE Link Layer? [/quote]

No. Changing the manufacturer specific data does not change anything from a compliance perspective, this is pretty much as intended.

[quote user=""]* I am using standard services (such as battery service) as well as my own custom services, I assume that I have to qualify my GATT, however I am not sure whether I should also re-qualify the ATT.[/quote]

No, as above.

[quote user=""]* My device is only a peripheral interacting with one central, and it is using just LE protocol so I think there is no need for Logical Link Control and Adaption Protocol?[/quote]

If you have enabled this through configuring the Softdevice it is allowed.

[quote user=""]* I assume that having my own custom hardware Antenna means I need to qualify my Phy layer.[/quote]

You should not qualify anything. List your product, refer to our QDID, test RF-PHY and save the logs.

[quote user=""]* I assume that I do not have to qualify Security Manager Protocol if I do not use pairing or bonding?[/quote]

Not needed.

Best regards,

Andreas