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

[dr71]

Hi Susheel,

thank you for your fast and clear answer. 

Regards

Dirk

[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