• State Verified Answer
  • Replies 5 replies
  • Subscribers 62 subscribers
  • Views 2106 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Attachments (0)
Nordic Case Info
  • Case ID: 102045
Options
This post is older than 2 years and might not be relevant anymore
More Info: Consider searching for newer posts

What risks can be when using SDK 5.2.0 + S110 6.0.0 on older nRF51822 QFAACA/C0 chips?

Martin

Hi, it happened that we have some hardware boards populated with older chips rev. QFAACA and some with newer rev. QFAAG0 but we need to share same software. As I read newer chips should use SDK 5.2.0 and older 4.4.2. But SDK functions are not compatible and firmware cannot be simply compiled with both SDKs. What risks can happed when 5.2.0 SDK wil be used with QFAACA chip? Was it just not tested or there is known serious problem?

  • 0

    The reason for this recommendation is that versions later than 5.2.1 hasn't been fully tested on second revision chips, so there could be issues that we don't know about due to the slight hardware differences. This issue is an example of such, and there could potentially also be others.

    However, both S110 version 6.0.0 and SDK 5.2.0 contains nice changes, that I'd strongly recommend you to build upon. Also, for production you'll almost certainly actually end up getting second revision chips by now. For development, I'd therefore recommend you to just use the most recent versions of the S110 and SDK with your current chip, but just make sure to get second revision chips for final testing and production.

  • 0

    Currently we have about 1000 pieces of QFAACA chips on our new car fleet management units that was made on this winter 2013/14. New batch will probably have QFAAG0 (I don't know if older chips are still supplied) but I need to support both and it would be very helpful to use only newer SDK version. I currently didn't observed any random assert error from softdevice. I read the issue thread but in my case I will not use battery power for old chips. They are fed from 3,3V LDO. Neither I use bondmgr (yet) so there shouldn't be internal flash writes.

  • 0 in reply to Martin

    Unfortunately, the only official recommendation I can give is to use 5.2.1 on first revision chips. If you still choose to use 6.0.0, you'll have to do this entirely on your own risk, and you should make sure to test things thoroughly, also in the corners of the environmental conditions you expect (i.e. temperature, voltage).

    Any future production should end up getting second revision chips, and first revision chips should not be supplied anymore.

  • 0

    OK, I take it on my mind. Currently I'm in a time press so I will continue with 6.0.0 to finish and if there will be some issues I would think about downgrading to old SDK...

  • 0 in reply to Martin

    This is of course your decision, but as I said, this is not something I'd recommend.

    However, I think my initial reply answered the original question here, so I'd be happy if you could accept it as an answer by pressing the button below it. :-)

Related