This blog describes how you can setup a Segger Embedded Studio example for PCA10040E (emulating nRF52810) from nRF5 SDK 14.2 to use S132 v5.1.0, instead of S112. The procedure should be similar for the other toolchains.
nRF5 SDK 14.2 officially supports S132 v5.0.0, but since it is drop-in compatible, you can use S132 v5.1.0 instead of S132 v5.0.0 for nRF5 SDK 14.2. Simply flash s132_nrf52_5.1.0_softdevice.hex instead of s132_nrf52_5.0.0_softdevice.hex. s132_nrf52_5.1.0_softdevice.hex can be downloaded here.
The ble_app_uart_pca10040e_s112 example will be used as a starting point. This is chosen because it is one of the smaller Bluetooth Low Energy examples, the larger ones may not fit in the nRF52810 flash.
If you get into trouble, please post a question in the Q&A section and link to this blog.
For more information on developing on nRF52810, see this.
There have been a lot of previous posts stating that S132 does not support nRF52810; eg, see: https://devzone.nordicsemi.com/f/nordic-q-a/38836/does-nrf52810-supports-concurrent-central-peripheral-role/…
The compatibility matrix also needs to be updated. Still, the community seems unaware of this update.
Also, limitations in terms of concurrent roles will be helpful.
I'm referring to the fact that we are setting FLASH_START to 0x23000 in section placement macros.
Hi!The S132 5.0.0 was, indeed, 0x23000 in size (or more accurately, 0x224A8). But v 5.1.0 is much smaller at 0x1F084. Are we giving up 3 KB of flash to maintain binary compatibility with v5.0.0?
The nRF52810 Compatibility Matrix only shows that S132 is only compatible at v5.1.0, and only with SDK v14.2.0.
Does this really mean that S132 is not approved for use with any v15.x.x SDK ?
Does this really mean that S132 later versions are no longer approved for use with nRF52810 ?
That link is now broken.
The link in the PDF https://infocenter.nordicsemi.com/pdf/S132_SDS_v6.2.pdf on page 15 is also broken.
This page, from the SoftDevice Specification:
mentions only nRF52832 - nothing about mRF52810.
Why does the SoftDecvice Specification not list compatible chips?
That hasn't been done; eg,