• State Verified Answer
  • Replies 4 replies
  • Subscribers 72 subscribers
  • Views 839 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Attachments (0)
Nordic Case Info
  • Case ID: 241285
Options
This post is older than 2 years and might not be relevant anymore
More Info: Consider searching for newer posts

Simple "GPIO bridge"

Benik3

Hello.

I would like to make simple GPIO bridge. That means transmitter with Digital input and receiver with digital output. When the state of DI changes, it's transferred to DO wirelessly. The data rate will be up to 70kbit.
Is nrf51822 OK for this? Or other? I know that I should be able to do this with NRF24, but I would like to have one SoC.

Thank you!

  • +1

    Hi Benik, 

    my suggestion would be to go with the nRF52810 for this type of application. It is supported in the latest SDK , nRF5 SDK v16.0.0, and supports the latest SoftDevices for the nRF52 Series as well. 

    The last SDK with NRF51 support is SDK 12.3.0 and there has been considerable improvements to the SDK since then. 

    Best regards

    Bjørn

  • 0 in reply to bjorn-spockeli

    Thanks for the reply!

    I mentioned nRF51822 because I have it now on the table. But I can move to another type.
    Is the SDK very different in term of user code or it's more about internal optimizations? I'm asking because if I make program for the nRF51822, does moving to e.g. the nRF52810 means to rewrite it heavily?

  • 0 in reply to Benik3

    Ah ok, the nRF51822 should also be adequate for this type of application, I just wanted to point out that you will get better performance with the nRF52810 compared to the nRF51822 in terms of overall current consumption as well as processing capabilities. 

    Benik3 said:
    Is the SDK very different in term of user code or it's more about internal optimizations? I'm asking because if I make program for the nRF51822, does moving to e.g. the nRF52810 means to rewrite it heavily?

    I would say that the SDK is not very different, we've added many modules that abstract away a lot of the generic code that is common for all the examples in our SDK. So, migrating the SDK should not be a very large effort. You will also have to migrate to a newer SoftDevice API, this can be a bit tedious, but we have migration guides for every major SoftDevice release. 

    BEst regards

    Bjørn

  • 0 in reply to bjorn-spockeli

    Thank you, I will try to get it working.
    It's first time what I will try to code with the SDK :)

Related
Terms of service