Simple "GPIO bridge"

RE: Simple "GPIO bridge"

Benik3 — Fri, 20 Dec 2019 17:27:07 GMT

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

RE: Simple "GPIO bridge"

bjorn-spockeli — Wed, 18 Dec 2019 07:52:19 GMT

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.

[quote user="Benik3"]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?[/quote]

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

RE: Simple "GPIO bridge"

Benik3 — Tue, 17 Dec 2019 22:22:36 GMT

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?

RE: Simple "GPIO bridge"

bjorn-spockeli — Tue, 17 Dec 2019 13:51:20 GMT

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