nrf9160 FOTA modem updates

[Frikkie Badenhorst]

Hi there,

We are running the Serial Lte Modem application on the nrf9160 DK and are testing the FOTA updates currently.

We do however have a few questions regarding this. 

Within the mfw_nrf9160_1.3.2.zip file, there seems to be 3 different .bin files:

• mfw_nrf9160_update_from_1.3.1_to_1.3.2.bin
• mfw_nrf9160_update_from_1.3.2_to_1.3.2-FOTA-TEST.bin
• mfw_nrf9160_update_from_1.3.2-FOTA-TEST_to_1.3.2

1) What are the differences between the above files? (for example what is xxxx-FOTA-TEST.bin)

2) From the above file names it appears as if modem firmware upgrades can only be done sequencially? Is that correct? For example if we want to upgrade from version 1.3.1 to 1.3.7 (just an example), you will have to first upgrade to 1.3.2, then 1.3.3 .... until you reach 1.3.7. Or is there an alternative

3) what is the firmware.update.image.cbor file within the mfw.zip and when to use that?

4) From posts like this it appears as if FOTA updates can not be done from mfw version 1.3.x to 1.4.x. Is this true? Seems a bit odd that a LTE device will need to be retrieved from the field if new major features wants to be supported?

Kind regards

Frikkie

[runsiv]

Hi,

1. 

• mfw_nrf9160_update_from_1.3.1_to_1.3.2.bin - FW for upgrading from FW 1.3.1 to 1.3.2
• mfw_nrf9160_update_from_1.3.2_to_1.3.2-FOTA-TEST.bin - FW for proving FW update over FOTA, will show as a change is FW
• mfw_nrf9160_update_from_1.3.2-FOTA-TEST_to_1.3.2 - FW for updating from the FOTA test FW to normal FW
  You can also see a list of the different images in the readme in same folder as the images. 

2.Delta updates (minor to minor) needs to be done sequentially while full modem updates can be done non-sequentially . 

3. It is used for a non-wired full modem update 

4. There are two ways to do the modem updates. Either a full firmware update or a delta firmware update. With a full update you exchange the whole modem image, the challenge here is that the modem is to large to be stored in the application flash. So if you want to do a full modem FOTA you need an external flash that is minimum 2MB. However if you have this, you can jump from whatever version to a new one( We only have full modem FOTA images for 1.3.0 and never). 

With a delta FW update you only download the changes from image to image. The downside with this approach is that you need to do upgrade from a given version to a given version. There is also a limit to the size of the image that limits the number of changes you can have a update. This means you can't jump from a minor version to major one. So from 1.3.x to 1.4.x you would need to do a full modem FOTA

Regards

Runar

[Frikkie Badenhorst]

Thanks for your response Runar.

runsiv said:

mfw_nrf9160_update_from_1.3.2-FOTA-TEST_to_1.3.2 - FW for updating from the FOTA test FW to normal FW
You can also see a list of the different images in the readme in same folder as the images. 

So I think there is a bit of confusion here from our side. Does "normal FW" then not support FOTA upgrades using the FOTA at commands? 

runsiv said:

There are two ways to do the modem updates. Either a full firmware update or a delta firmware update.

I see. So am I correct in saying that the serial lte modem application (which we are currently running) is ONLY capable of delta updates using the FOTA AT commands? For this we will NOT need external flash?

For a full modem upgrade OTA, we will need to integrate the HTTP full modem update example into the Serial LTE Modem application. For a full modem update the .cbor file is required and for this we will need external flash?

[runsiv]

Hi again

1. I think I had an unfortunate wording here. With normal FW I mend to say it had a normal naming scheme and not the FOTA-TEST name. It should support FOTA. 

2. Yes you will need to integrate that functionality  If your host has enough flash it can do a full modem update. then it can be possible to do a full modem update. I believe you have another thread where you discuses external host with Didirik 

Regards

Runar

[Frikkie Badenhorst]

Thanks Runar, 

runsiv said:

1. I think I had an unfortunate wording here. With normal FW I mend to say it had a normal naming scheme and not the FOTA-TEST name. It should support FOTA. 

I still think it is a bit unclear then what the difference is between normal FW and the FOTA-TEST FW. I guess we will just be continuing to use the normal FW .bin files in that case.

runsiv said:

Yes you will need to integrate that functionality

Thanks. Yes discussing a wired/serial upgrade on a different ticket with Didrik.

[runsiv]

Hi, sorry for the delay

The difference is only the name and UUID of the FW. It let's you update the image and verify that there has been a FW change from reading the name/UUID of the FW

Regards

Runar