nRF5_SDK_17.0.2_d674dde\examples\dfu\secure_bootloader\pca10056_s140_ble_debug\ses won't advertise DfuTarg name

[gfmoore]

So I now have nRF 52840 dk and I'm working through the secure bootloader example. I am using SES. (Windows).

So I built and flashed the the app and it looks fine, it has Leds 1 and 2 lit and the software layout looks fine (in nRF Connect)

In trying to use the Connect J-Link, I see the output (in part)

<debug> nrf_dfu_ble: Enabling the BLE stack.
<debug> nrf_dfu_ble: No advertising name found
<debug> nrf_dfu_ble: Using default advertising name
<debug> nrf_dfu_ble: Advertising...

As far as I know the advertising name is defined in the sdk_config.h?

// <s> NRF_DFU_BLE_ADV_NAME - Default advertising name.
#ifndef NRF_DFU_BLE_ADV_NAME
#define NRF_DFU_BLE_ADV_NAME "DfuTarg"
#endif

I've tried following the code and stepping into, but it's a rabbit warren and I got lost.

Can you help please.

Gordon

[gfmoore]

Okay, I apologise for getting frustrated. Please don't throw yourself in any lake, unless that is your thing :sardonic smile

I am not asking you to debug my phone, BUT ble_app_blinky advertises it's name, yes and my phone can see it. No problem.

the OTA DFU advertises it's name, but my phone cannot see DfuTarg. 

I would have thought? that both apps are using similar functions in order to advertise their name?

So what is different in the two apps in the advertising phase that one is okay with my phone and the other isn't. 

I am hoping that with your extensive knowledge and expertise you might be able to explain and then maybe it can be fixed, because I can't afford a new phone and I need this functionality.

Pretty please 

[Einar Thorsrud]

Hi Gordon, 

gfmoore said:

I am not asking you to debug my phone, BUT ble_app_blinky advertises it's name, yes and my phone can see it. No problem.

the OTA DFU advertises it's name, but my phone cannot see DfuTarg. 

The thing is that the example advertises the name correctly. That can be easily verified, and you have done so with the other phone you have tested. I have been looking and not been able to find any references to any similar problem before so this seems to be quite specific to the phone you are using (and specifically with the ViperOS).

gfmoore said:

So what is different in the two apps in the advertising phase that one is okay with my phone and the other isn't. 

The content of the advertisement packet is different, but also the Bootloader use a very simple advertising packet, with no advertising extension, and no scan response. So it is very basic. I do not have access to your phone so I am not able to test, but you can try to modify the advertising packet by adjusting the implementation of advertising_init() in <SDK>\components\libraries\bootloader\ble_dfu\nrf_dfu_ble.c. Perhaps you by experimentation can find out more about what your phone does not understand.

I would say though that if this is for commercial product development then it does not make much sense to spend time and money to try to implement a workaround on the nRF for an issue you can only reproduce with a seven year old phone using a custom OS.