ANT Forum

Hi, I've just purchased a D52 starter kit and I'm trying to follow the D00001678_-_ANT_SoC_Module_Starter_Kit_User_Manual_Rev_1.0 manual to produce my first build and run the "examples/ant/experimental/ant_io_demo/ant_io_tx" example project from the SDK.

I have a couple of problems.

1. Determining the correct SDK to use.
2. Finding the necessary header files for S212.

1. SDK Version

Starter kit manual Table 2-3, item 1, indicates use of section 1.7.2 to determine the correct nRF5 SDK to install.
Section 1.7.2 has a link to a compatibility matrix,.
The compatibility matrix shows supported versions of the SDK related to nRF52832 IC revision.

How can I determine the nRF52832 IC revision from the module information?

2. Header Files

Having read in Tech Bulletin Sep 14, 2016 LATEST PRODUCTION RELEASE OF S212 AND S332 ANT PROTOCOL STACKS V2.0.0 NOW AVAILABLE that;

"The latest 2.0 versions of the S212 ANT SoftDevice and the S332 ANT/BLE SoftDevice are compatible with the production release of the Nordic NRF5 SDK v12.0.0 and can be used with the Nordic nRF52 Development Kit (PCA10040) and the Dynastream D52 Starter Kit."

I have downloaded V12.0.0 of the SDK and the associated V2.0.0 S212 and S332 Soft devices.

When I follow Starter kit manual step 2.1.7, item 3, for the S212 soft device (ANT_s212_nrf52_2.0.0.zip as downloaded from this site), the include folder contains a single folder named nrf52 but there are no header files.

As a result when I attempt to build the example project I see a number of file not found errors for header files.

e.g.
..\..\..\..\..\..\..\components\ant\ant_search_config\ant_search_config.h(13): error: #5: cannot open source input file "ant_parameters.h": No such file or directory

The C/C++ settings of my uVision IDE are set to use the S212 soft device header folders so if the necessary files existed therein I expect the project would build.

Questions:

1. Is V12.0.0 the correct SDK for my module?
2. Where can I find the necessary header files for the S212 soft device

Notes: The S332 soft device does contain header files.

Many thanks

Chris.
     

Answering my own questions in case its helpful to anyone else trying to get started:

1. Determining correct SDK:

I still don't see how to do this from the docs, or from the information on the module casing, but as I have now managed to get a working build I can confirm that SDK V12.0.0 and Softdevice V2.0.0 are compatible with my starter kit.

2. Missing header files:

Well they are definitely missing from the S212 zip file. I have copied the files from the S332 zip file into the necessary place in the SDK for the S212.

This has allowed me to make a working build of the IO demo application which I have tested using ANTWare II and it works.

In my opinion this is a nasty hack and potentially dangerous. I have no idea if the headers for S332 actually match S212. It would be much more comfortable for a beginner if the files were in the S212 zip file as indicated in the getting started guide!

Can anyone confirm if this is a correct fix?

Chris.      

1. The readme file in the SDK typically lists the supported SoftDevices, and the SoftDevice itself corresponds to the chipset in the module. For instance, the readme file in SDK12 lists:

Supported SoftDevices:
- S130 v2.0.1
- S132 v3.0.0
- S212 v2.0.0
- S332 v2.0.0

The S210 and S310 SoftDevices are only directly supported by SDK10 or older.

2. I just took a look and the S212 headers are present in the S212 zip file in the "ANT_s212_nrf52832_2.0.0.API" folder. Could you try downloading it again to confirm?

Thanks,
Harrison      

Harrison, thanks for your response.

1. I can confirm that I have downloaded the S212 soft device zip file again and this does now contain the header files. I still have the old copy that doesn't so I'm not going mad at least!

2. I still don't completely follow regarding the SDK version. I can see how the SDK and SoftDevice versions are related. What I can't see is how the module information that is laser etched onto the module cover relates to an SDK version. The SDK compat matrix lists chip revisions of the nRF52832, how do I tell which chip revision my module is using and thus which SDK is correct?

Thanks

Chris.      

Hi Chris,

1. That is strange, thanks for confirming! Maybe someone fixed it earlier...

2. I can confirm that the module is using currently the only production revision (1), though I will see if I can get that added to the datasheet as I was surprised to see it was not mentioned. Typically though, modules have been up-reved when breaking changes between chipset revisions occur (N548 vs N550 for instance).      

Harrison - 28 September 2016 11:24 AM

Hi Chris,

1. That is strange, thanks for confirming! Maybe someone fixed it earlier...

2. I can confirm that the module is using currently the only production revision (1), though I will see if I can get that added to the datasheet as I was surprised to see it was not mentioned. Typically though, modules have been up-reved when breaking changes between chipset revisions occur (N548 vs N550 for instance).

With respect to point 2. I guess this is all quite new and that with a new module I'm pretty likely to be able to use the latest SDK. But what happens a few releases down the line when I go pick up a module from the shelf and attempt to use it for some dev work, how will I know which SDKs are valid then? Unless I'm missing something (perfectly possible) I think we need to see the module ID in the compat matrix so we can be sure which module works with which SDK.

Thanks again for your help on this, its very early days for me but some traction early on always helps motivation.      

Sorry, I should have explained this better. What I was getting at is that the release notes which come with the SoftDevice state the chipset revision they are compatible with:

Compatibility
Compatible with Rev C and Rev 1

So if we place the chipset revision in the datasheet, you can tell if the SoftDevice is compatible with that module revision which contains that specific chipset revision. I can definitely see adding a compatibility matrix to the module datasheet would also not hurt

Good luck with the rest of your development.