SENSE Value Mismatch?

RE: SENSE Value Mismatch?

Ole Morten — Mon, 14 Oct 2013 11:35:56 GMT

Accepting an answer is only available to the original poster, but the question was posted anonymously, there is no way for you to do this. I can however do it for you. :-)

What I meant with my "shouldn't rely on that" comment was that when you read the reference manual, you should only rely on things that are explicitly spelled out. Even though you can work out the meaning of the bits behind the values, this could in principle change with a future revision, and if it does, we won't necessarily document that change very clearly, since the exact meaning wasn't spelled out in the first place. However, for the same version of the chip, this shouldn't really be a problem.

RE: SENSE Value Mismatch?

Brian Acock — Fri, 11 Oct 2013 13:19:07 GMT

Thanks for the quick response Ole! This is the 3rd time you have answered a question for me and I have neglected to "Accept as Answer" all 3 times - not because it wasn't helpful, but because I did not see any option in my browser to "accept as answer".

Perhaps this is because I posted as a guest? I have created an account as it seems I'll be frequenting this website for the foreseeable future :)

One last thing, can you clarify what you mean that I "shouldn't rely on that"? Just that I should not rely on the bit meanings until they are officially corrected/published in the reference manual?

RE: SENSE Value Mismatch?

Ole Morten — Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:31:11 GMT

Unfortunately, this is a know typo in the reference manual, that will be fixed in the next release. You're quite correct that the value in nrf51_bitfields is correct, and also on the bit meanings, although you shouldn't rely on that.