About the number of saved bonding information

[sdi_kei]

Hello.
I am developing using nrf52832 (S132 v7.0.1, SDK v16.0.0).

I use whitelist to store bonding information. Is there an upper limit to the number that can be stored?
Also, how can I set it to increase the number that can be saved?

If you have any materials, please let me know.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you.

[sdi_kei]

Hello.
The explanation was not enough.

Premise
・ Bonded to 2 devices
・The value of whitelist_cnt is 0
・ The value of peer_cnt is 1.

Purpose
・ I want to be able to receive advice from one of the two devices, and disable advertising from the other.
・ I want to switch between receivable and unreceivable after a certain period of time.

How to call whitelist_load (pm_whitelist_set)
・ Measure the time using App Timer and add 1 to the value of whitelist_cnt after a certain period of time.

Inside peer_list_get ()
・ Please refer to the code below

I think I can change the peers I set in whitelist by using whitelist_cnt.
For example, when whitelist_cnt is 1, it will be "pm_whitelist_set (peer + (sizeof (uint16_t) * BLE_GAP_WHITELIST_ADDR_MAX_COUNT)), peer_cnt);", which means the same code as Hung Bui taught me.
Since whitelist_cnt does not exceed the number of devices, it can only be 0 or 1. If it is 0, it will be the device that bonded first, and if it is 1, it will be the device that bonded the second time.

Is this idea wrong?

Thank you.

/**@brief Retrive a list of peer manager peer IDs.
 *
 * @param[inout] p_peers   The buffer where to store the list of peer IDs.
 * @param[inout] p_size    In: The size of the @p p_peers buffer.
 *                         Out: The number of peers copied in the buffer.
 */
static void peer_list_get(pm_peer_id_t * p_peers, uint32_t * p_size)
{
    pm_peer_id_t peer_id;
    uint32_t     peers_to_copy;

    peers_to_copy = (*p_size < BLE_GAP_WHITELIST_ADDR_MAX_COUNT) ?
                     *p_size : BLE_GAP_WHITELIST_ADDR_MAX_COUNT;

    peer_id = pm_next_peer_id_get(PM_PEER_ID_INVALID);
    *p_size = 0;

    while ((peer_id != PM_PEER_ID_INVALID) && (peers_to_copy--))
    {
        p_peers[(*p_size)++] = peer_id;
        peer_id              = pm_next_peer_id_get(peer_id);
    }
}

[Hung Bui]

Hi Kei, 
I'm sorry that I was not aware that the peer_list_get() was taken from one of our example. 
I assume you are planning to have more than 2 peer in the database right ? The scenario of 2 peers is just for testing  ? 

Note that if you simply want to filter the advertising packets, you can also filter them in the NRF_BLE_SCAN_EVT_FILTER_MATCH event if you use a filter or  NRF_BLE_SCAN_EVT_NOT_FOUND event ( It's the event for all advertising packet if you don't use any filter). 

Regarding your code:

In the example the peer_list_get will return the number of peers, so in your case if you have 2 peers in the database, it will return 2, not 1. 
So in your case the first call should be: 
 peer_list_get(peers, &peer_cnt);

ret = pm_whitelist_set(peers, 1);
APP_ERROR_CHECK(ret);

and the second call should be 

 peer_list_get(peers, &peer_cnt);

ret = pm_whitelist_set(peers+sizeof(uint16_t), 1);
APP_ERROR_CHECK(ret);

Notice both time the number of peer count is 1. 

if you plan to have more peers on each whitelist set, you need to change 1 to match with what you want. But it should not exceed the max number of peers (like what I described earlier, if you have 12 peers, on the first call you can call 8 peers, and the next one you use 4) 

[sdi_kei]

Hello.

Currently, we are confirming with bonding of 2 units as a study, but we are assuming bonding of 8 or more units in the future.
I also use this filter because I want to communicate with a device that has been bonded once.

I changed to the code you taught me and used nRF Connect to bond two devices. But I get the same error.
After bonding two units and executing pm_list_get, when I checked the value of peer_cnt, it was 1 instead of 2.

Why is peer_cnt 1 after running pm_list_get?

Thank you.

[Hung Bui]

Hi Kei, 
I think I found what could be wrong here. 
The correct code should be:

  if (whitelist_select==1)
    {
           ret = pm_whitelist_set(peers, 1);
          APP_ERROR_CHECK(ret);

          // Setup the device identies list.
          // Some SoftDevices do not support this feature.
          ret = pm_device_identities_list_set(peers, 1);
          if (ret != NRF_ERROR_NOT_SUPPORTED)
          {
              APP_ERROR_CHECK(ret);
            }

       };
      if (whitelist_select==2)
      {
          ret = pm_whitelist_set(&peers[1], 1);
          APP_ERROR_CHECK(ret);

          // Setup the device identies list.
          // Some SoftDevices do not support this feature.
          ret = pm_device_identities_list_set(&peers[1], 1);
          if (ret != NRF_ERROR_NOT_SUPPORTED)
          {
              APP_ERROR_CHECK(ret);
            }

       };

I attached the code I used for my test here. Notice the addition code in bsp_event_handler() so when you click button 1 on the board (BSP_EVENT_SLEEP button id = 0) it will switch to whitelist 2. First it will disable scanning, then assign whitelist_select= 2 and start scanning again.

   case BSP_EVENT_SLEEP:
            //nrf_pwr_mgmt_shutdown(NRF_PWR_MGMT_SHUTDOWN_GOTO_SYSOFF);
        nrf_gpio_pin_toggle(LED_2);
        err_code =  sd_ble_gap_scan_stop();
        APP_ERROR_CHECK(err_code);
        whitelist_select=2;
       
        scan_start();
            break;

When calling scan_start(), the function whitelist_load() will be called again due to NRF_BLE_SCAN_EVT_WHITELIST_REQUEST event. This time whitelist 2 will be used (because whitelist_select is now set to 2). 

7571.main.zip

[sdi_kei]

Hello.

Thank you for the code.
I don't have NRF 52DK, so I used the code as a reference.
However, the error still occurs.

When I checked, I bonded two devices, but the contents of the peers array were "0x0000, 0xffff, 0xffff, 0xffff, 0xffff, 0xffff, 0xffff, 0xffff". I think that there are 0x0000 and 0x0001 if two units are bonded.

Why is there only one?

Also, the current code does not repeat receiving and not receiving advertisements alternately, but acts to receive both advices.

How can this be resolved?

Thank you.