BLE_ERROR_NOT_ENABLED with S120

[Tim]

Hi,

I'm using a lightly modified copy of the Multilink central S120 example code. When I get to ble_stack_init() the first thing it does is SOFTDEVICE_HANDLER_INIT(NRF_CLOCK_LFCLKSRC_XTAL_20_PPM, NULL);

Unfortunately that gives me an error code of 4097 which is BLE_ERROR_NOT_ENABLED. The comment for that error says "sd_ble_enable has not been called". But in the example code sd_ble_enable() is after SOFTDEVICE_HANDLER_INIT() so of course it hasn't been called!

If I believe the error and move sd_ble_enable() before SOFTDEVICE_HANDLER_INIT() then sd_ble_enable() returns error code 2, which is NRF_ERROR_SOFTDEVICE_NOT_ENABLED!

What is going on here? Which one should go first, and why are there error codes for both of them not being called first?

[Tim]

Yeah GCC 4.9. Not sure what to say - with -O3 the sample works, with -Os it doesn't!

[RK]

ok I've certainly had issues with clang optimising stuff away but never gcc. At this point I'd probably go take a look at the generated assembler and see what it's doing around those softdevice calls.

[Susheel Nuguru]

Hi Tim,

To answer your first post. It looks like your own serial code is making a ble call. There is no other explanation I can think to this.

/Aryan

[Tim]

I narrowed it down to NVIC_ClearPendingIRQ(UART0_IRQn); NVIC_EnableIRQ(UART0_IRQn); - are you not supposed to be able to call those before initialising the softdevice? Or are there other functions I should be using instead if using the softdevice?

[Susheel Nuguru]

It cant be those functions as they are void functions and cannot return with any error. I suggest you to reduce the optimisation for your compiler and try to track it using breakpoints. Sometimes the breakpoint stepping is not the most trustful thing with highest optimization and interrupt driven systems.