• State Verified Answer
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 3 replies
  • Subscribers 62 subscribers
  • Views 4778 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Attachments (0)
Nordic Case Info
  • Case ID: 111448
Options
This post is older than 2 years and might not be relevant anymore
More Info: Consider searching for newer posts
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

BT address vs DEVICEADDR

Sergy

Hi, There is a difference of one digit in BT address and DEVICEADDR. Could anybody explain this? I know in the last byte we have to add C0, but what about the frst byte? Why is it different?

BT address and DEVICEADDR

  • 0

    Hi Sergey,

    This is strange. Are you sure there is no manual address change in the application code ?

    Could you try again with a stock example in the SDK ?

  • 0

    Im using BLE DFU Bootloader from SDK10 without any change to it, so this is what i get from advertising in bootloader, not in app.

  • 0

    Hi Sergey,

    Then it's normal. In the bootloader we change address by +1 so that the address of the bootloader would not be identical with the application. This is to avoid ATT table caching issue we have on the phone. So that it won't update the ATT table when we switch to bootloader mode.

    If you don't want this, you can of course remove that part of code inside dfu_transport_update_start() in dfu_transport_ble.c so that the address is not modified.

Related