• State
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 1 reply
  • Subscribers 31 subscribers
  • Views 398 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Related

This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

CC8520 - Network Status LED - Pairing

kurt57633
Prodigy 80 points

Hello,

I'm using the host interface to do pairing on a slave via NWM_DO_JOIN with a 10 second timeout, device ID = 0xFFFFFFFF, and all other IDs set to zero.  The slave successfully pairs with a master.  However, the Network LED does not output the PAIRING LED pattern before I enable pairing on the master.  The network LED just displays the ALONE LED pattern.  After pairing completes, the slave Network LED outputs the ACTIVE LED pattern.

Shouldn't I see the PAIRING LED pattern while NWM_DO_JOIN is executing?  I was expecting the double blink pattern that the development kits output on the LED after you push the pairing button.

Thanks,

Kurt

  • 0
    TI__Expert 7160 points

    Hi Kurt,

    On the slave it's the NWM_DO_SCAN that enables the PAIRING blinking pattern. On the master the PAIRING blinking pattern should be enabled by setting the pairing flag using NWM_CONTROL_SIGNAL. However this isn't working as it should. There's a bug with the LED blinking firmware, not the pairing mechanisms.

     

    Intended LED behaviour is:

    -Protocol slave: The status LED should blink the PAIRING pattern while the slave is scanning. When the specified timeout is reached or the specified number of networks are located the scan ends and the blinking pattern goes back to ALONE.

    -Protocol master: The status LED should blink the PAIRING pattern when the pairing flag is set.

     

    Actual behaviour:

    -Protocol slave: The LED never stopps blinking the PAIRING pattern.

    -Protocol master: The LED never blinks the pairing pattern, even though the flag is set.

     

    I've reported this to the firmware team. Thank you for noticing :-)

    -Kristoffer