Anelok: CC2543 vs. nRF51822

Cristian Paul Peñaranda Rojas paul at kristianpaul.org
Sat Jan 23 05:21:52 UTC 2016


I would be good consider more options before making a choice that breaks board compatibility again in the future.

Cristian Paul 

> El 22/01/2016, a las 22:24, Werner Almesberger <werner at almesberger.net> escribió:
> 
> A while ago I discussed the Anelok design with Bluetooth hacker Mike
> Ryan, and he strongly recommended using the Nordic nRF51822 instead
> of the the TI CC2543.
> 
> The idea for the TI CC2543 is to write the lower layers of an open
> BTLE stack from scratch, and at some point mix this with the upper
> layers from BlueZ.
> 
> The main benefit of this approach is that it's 100% open. The main
> drawback is that it's a lot of work, especially given that the
> hardware doesn't quite support the BTLE frame format, and thus would
> require some creative software tweaks.
> 
> After looking (again [1]) at the nRF51822 documentation, I'm now
> reasonably confident that one could write an all-Free stack also for
> this chip. But it has the added benefit that Nordic provide a
> (closed) stack as well, which should help to keep the development
> time for a first working prototype down.
> 
> Another feature that may become important given recent regulatory
> trends is that the nRF51822 (like the Kinetis MCUs) can be protected
> against unauthorized Flash modification. I.e., one could write a
> boot loader that only accepts signed binaries. The CC2543, on the
> other hand, can always be fully erased and then accepts any new
> firmware.
> 
> Further advantages of the nRF51822 include that it's a Cortex M0
> (so we don't need SDCC for the ancient 8051 core of the CC2543) and
> that it has enough Flash and RAM for the entire BTLE stack. That may
> end up weakening the role of the cMCU, but I think any possible
> optimizations there can wait until later.
> 
> I haven't put too much work into the CC2543 so far, so the time lost
> by switching RF chips again wouldn't be excessive. Of course, such a
> change will still obsolete all the RF sections of the 2014/Mk2/CR2032
> boards made so far.
> 
> [1] http://lists.en.qi-hardware.com/pipermail/discussion/2014-April/010574.html
> 
> Opinions ?
> 
> - Werner
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Qi Hardware Discussion List
> Mail to list (members only): discussion at lists.en.qi-hardware.com
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe: http://lists.en.qi-hardware.com/mailman/listinfo/discussion



More information about the discussion mailing list


interactive