• State Verified Answer
  • Replies 3 replies
  • Subscribers 74 subscribers
  • Views 1029 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Attachments (0)
Nordic Case Info
  • Case ID: 245356
Options
This post is older than 2 years and might not be relevant anymore
More Info: Consider searching for newer posts

nRF52832 Errata 220 clearification, need more information

dr71

Hi,

I will come back to the discussion in (because it is in state "Verified Answer" I opened up a new one) :

https://devzone.nordicsemi.com/f/nordic-q-a/55197/nrf52832-errata-220-clearification

For me it is still not clear if the workaround can handled by my application if I use the SD 132 V6.1.1.

As far as I understood I can't do anything if the softdevice call sd_app_evt_wait() by itself. Or does this never happen

and I only have to implement the __WFE() in my own application with the workaround inside, and never call

sd_app_evt_wait() form my application?

A second question, the errata mention a V8.0 but it is not released yet is that correct?

Thank you in advance!

Regards,

Dirk

  • +1
    As far as I understood I can't do anything if the softdevice call sd_app_evt_wait() by itself. Or does this never happen

    The SD never calls sd_app_evt_wait by itself. It will also not call __WFE by itself.

    I only have to implement the __WFE() in my own application with the workaround inside, and never call

    Yes, that is correct. You just need to call __WFE in the way that is given as the workaround for this errata.

     

    A second question, the errata mention a V8.0 but it is not released yet is that correct?

     Correct, this will be available very soon.

  • 0

    Hi Susheel,

    thank you for your fast and clear answer. 

    Regards

    Dirk

  • 0 in reply to dr71

    Hi Susheel,

    is this thread still open or is it closed and I have to open e new one?

    The reason is that another related question came up.
    The function sd_app_evt_wait() is implemented in the Softdevice. Therefore I assume that the SD is calling __WFE() even if the SD didn't use it.

    As mentioned in 

    Eirik Midttun over 5 years ago (https://devzone.nordicsemi.com/f/nordic-q-a/4498/difference-between-wfe-and-sd_app_evt_wait/15954#15954)

    The sd_app_evt_wait is basically the safe version of WFE when using the SoftDevice. Since the SoftDevice is running in a different context than your application you cannot know if it is safe to use WFE. Therefore, use the SD function.

    I should use the function sd_app_evt_wait() to be safe with the SD but on the other hand the implementation of sd_app_evt_wait() in the SD did't contains the workaround till now.

    So it is again unclear for me if I should use sd_app_evt_wait() or the workaround?.

    Regards,

    Dirk

Related
Terms of service