MQTT Client on nRF52 device + Wifi module

RE: MQTT Client on nRF52 device + Wifi module

Øyvind — Tue, 12 Nov 2019 08:14:26 GMT

The only example I know of it the Simple MQTT for the nRF9160, a fully integrated SiP for cellular IoT with built-in GPS. Have you considered this device instead?

Our forum does have some similar questions, e.g. this thread

RE: MQTT Client on nRF52 device + Wifi module

Siebesiech — Mon, 11 Nov 2019 16:07:55 GMT

Hello Øyvind

[quote userid="77062" url="~/f/nordic-q-a/54193/mqtt-client-on-nrf52-device-wifi-module/219483"]Can you please elaborate on what WiFi module you are using?[/quote]

At the moment it is not defined which module is used. However to be more flexible (for example, when choosing the Wifi module) it is planned to use a module which has not implemented the MQTT layer.

[quote userid="77062" url="~/f/nordic-q-a/54193/mqtt-client-on-nrf52-device-wifi-module/219483"]If the examples are sufficient for you, then I see no reason why your first approach can't be used.[/quote]

I have to take a closer look at this example. As I have seen, the communication is implemented via Bluetooth and thus via a Bluetooth router. Therefore I have to analyze which parts are not needed as they are made by the module (e.g. encryption).

So it would help me and also save time if I could build on an example where this transport layer was adapted to a UART. This does not have to be complete, but can only be a small part of it. Do you know such an example?

Best regards

RE: MQTT Client on nRF52 device + Wifi module

Øyvind — Mon, 11 Nov 2019 13:26:29 GMT

Hello Siebesiech,

Can you please elaborate on what WiFi module you are using? Usually, the nRF52 would send data to the WiFi module which handles the MQTT layer, of course, if you're using e.g. ESP32. Have a look at the MQTT chapter in our SDK, and the examples on MQTT subscriber and MQTT publisher.

[quote user=""]use the MQTT libraries from Nordic and adapt the transport layer for AT commands over UART[/quote]

If the examples are sufficient for you, then I see no reason why your first approach can't be used.

Kind regards,
Øyvind