• State Verified Answer
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 8 replies
  • Subscribers 27 subscribers
  • Views 264 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Attachments (2) Download All
Nordic Case Info
  • Case ID: 287234
Options
nRF5 SDK is not maintained anymore
More Info: Consider nRF Connect SDK for new designs
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

Time synchronization with alternating masters

user115111

Dear members,

with success I implemented the time synchronization example from the nRF5 SDK guide.
This example works perfect for a single master, but what if the master changes?
When I check my scope it will show that the new master starts sending the sync beacons, but the slave (previous master) is not receiving and stays low.
Would there be a solution to put a master in receiver mode after stopping the sync beacons?

I am using four nRF52840-DKs with Segger Studio, SDK 17 and a S140 softdevice (used for a custom BLE service)

Parents Reply Children
  • 0 in reply to user2111

    Hello Kenneth,

    that would be great. If I find the solution before Easter I will let you know ;).

    Regards, Egbert

  • 0 in reply to user115111

    Hello Kenneth,

    I was not able to find a solution to this item. Did you managed to contact the creator of this example?

    Regards, Egbert

  • 0 in reply to user115111

    Hi Egbert,

    I suspect there is state information still lingering after stopping the transmitter. Could you try the attached diff on your side?

    My test was  the following, based on 2 x nRF52-DK.

    1) Press button 1 on DK #1 to assign this role of transmitter

    2) Observe that both DKs toggle GPIO in unison

    3) Press button 1 on DK #1 to stop transmitting

    4) Wait until DK #2 reports desynchronization (GPIO stops togglnig)

    5) Press button 1 on DK #2 to assign this role of transmitter

    6) Observe that both DKs toggle GPIO in unison

    Best regards,

    Audun

  • 0 in reply to user2167

    Hi again,

    I thought about it some more and decided the previous diff was a not so good workaround. This one should work better, as it doesn't reset the "m_master_counter_diff" variable. Resetting this variable would cause a jump in timestamps, which is probably not desirable.

    Best regards,

    Audun

  • 0 in reply to user2167

    Hello Audun,

    Thank you for your reply!

    I did the diff on my side it all compiles ok. But I think I did something wrong, since I am not able to switch masters. All the steps as described work fine, except for the last step (step 6) since only the new master starts to toggle, the new slave does not toggle its GPIO. 

    Can you tell me the reason why you added "m_master_counter_diff" and where to declare this variable?

    regards Egbert

Related
Terms of service