nRF52: STOP in Rx state -> No event?

RE: nRF52: STOP in Rx state -> No event?

Bruce McKenney — Tue, 22 Sep 2015 14:43:24 GMT

Sure enough, there it is. I managed to mis-read this (4-5 times) before.

Thank you.

RE: nRF52: STOP in Rx state -> No event?

Susheel Nuguru — Mon, 21 Sep 2015 12:32:55 GMT

Disable is not illegal transition. If you look at the state diagram, you can see that disable can be called from RXRU/TXRU or RXIDLE/TXIDE or RX/TX. All of them grom into RXDISABLE/TXDISABLE state.

RE: nRF52: STOP in Rx state -> No event?

Bruce McKenney — Mon, 21 Sep 2015 12:30:00 GMT

Thanks, I'll try the DISABLE. I didn't try that before since there's no arrow for it in the diagram viz. illegal transition. (In the process of tracking this down, I accidentally tried a few "illegal transitions" and I didn't enjoy them much (:-)).)

RE: nRF52: STOP in Rx state -> No event?

Susheel Nuguru — Mon, 21 Sep 2015 08:58:58 GMT

I have tested the behavior on nRF51 and it is the same as nRF52. The END event is only generated when the transaction is completed and not when the RADIO is stopped or disabled. Looks like the diagram has a small error.

RE: nRF52: STOP in Rx state -> No event?

Susheel Nuguru — Fri, 18 Sep 2015 12:03:21 GMT

I am not sure 100% of the rationale behind this but it actually made some sense to me.

maybe to remove the confusion that, if we generate END event after STOP task, then it can be confused as TX/RX transaction is complete even though it wasn’t!!

The specific use case you mentioned about STOP-ing on timeout, you can do DISABLE instead of STOP task, that will achieve the same goal instead of STOP_TASK->END_EVENT->DISABLE_TASK.