Regulatory requirements using nRF5182

[atummac]

I am looking at using an nRF51 in a BLE product (industrial applications).

One of the things that I have to sort of prove is that it will be a better choice than something like the CC2541 by TI. I already have a very big list, but a big hurdle is going to be regulatory requirements. According to the TI wiki:

In order to release a Bluetooth product to market, the solution need to be Qualified. If a TI reference designs (Ex. CC2540EM/CC2541EM) is strictly followed and the profiles are not changed, the customers do not need to go through the complete qualification process.

My impression is that we should be able to do the same sort of things with QDLs by Nordic as TI claims we can do with their QDLs, or is there something different between the qualified designs TI offers versus Nordic?

I know I probably will not get a response from a BQE on this forum so I don't have the expectation that the answers I receive would be authoritative, but maybe someone here has gone through the process a few times. Also if I were to create an end product listing from a qualified design, which qualified design would I use and how much can the design be changed? I notice there is a silk screen box on all the boards around the radio, is it this area that needs to be exactly the same? Or it is the entire PCB?

I know there are a few questions already on this subject matter, but I don't feel like any of the answers had the key information I was looking for.

[Alex]

Have a look at these discussions 1 2 From my understanding better to go for 3rd party module and register your product with Bluetooth SIG. Reference Designs from Nordic have to be as entire PCB which is not as good as modules. If you use part of design on your PCB then you need to go through additional process of RF/RFPHY testing. Doing your own module will take some time but can be used in multiple products and will amortize quicker over time.

[atummac]

Thank you for your answer! We are definitely considering the module route but my guess is that a module may be more difficult to source than the chip set the module (and quite a few other modules) use, so doing the chip level design and absorbing the cost of testing and qualification may be worth the cost if it prevents (and/or reduces the risk of) us going through redesigns because of sourcing issues. I don't think we have made that decision yet.

One of those links I had not seen yet, thank you for those.

[Hung Bui]

@atimmac: I think the answer from Runar in the link above by Alex pretty much coverred what you need to be aware of regarding qualification. Do you have futher question ? If you don't I would suggest you to accept the answer and we can close the case.