• State Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 4 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 51 subscribers
  • Views 324 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.

Original question:

CC2651R3SIPA: Porting from CC2640F128 and BT SIG certification qualification

CC2640: Certifying 3rd-party modules based on CC2640F128 and CC2640R2

Ed Mandy
Prodigy 30 points
Part Number: CC2640
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: CC2650

I have multiple options that I am evaluating for this, and I am breaking them down into multiple posts.  These posts may appear similar at first, but they have separate questions.

I am taking on the task of updating an existing product where we may need to replace the existing Bluetooth module (which is based on the CC2640F128).  This project is only using BLE, and we are not adding any features even if we move to a chip/module that supports more features.

One goal of this update is to keep the redesign effort to a minimum.  If we change to a different module, that will require a PCB redesign for the new footprint.  If we change to a different BT chip, that will require porting or rewriting the code that runs on the BT module.

One thing that's not 100% clear is what we absolutely need to update to qualify for the BT SIG certification.

I believe that we have 2 options that I would also like to understand, from a TI perspective. Both of these options would not require us to do any PCB modifications and would, therefore, be very appealing from a cost perspective.  They are both based around using 3rd-party modules that are built around TI CC2640F128 and CC2640R2 chips.

One option would be to actually keep using our current CC2640F128 module which I believe has a withdrawn QDID (66911).  To certify this with the BT SIG, could we use the component QDIDs 176642 and 118740 to qualify the product?  If so, what testing would that require?

Another option would be to switch to a footprint-compatible module which is based on the CC2640R2.  This module's QDID (96853) seems to be out of the 3-year window.  To certify this with the BT SIG, could we use the component QDIDs 176642 and 118740 to qualify the product?  If so, what testing would that require?

  • 0
    TI__Guru** 101450 points

    Hi,

    I would recommend reviewing the following app note: https://www.ti.com/ble-qualification

    To answer your questions

    - In general, I recommend referencing End Product Listing (EPL) QDIDs as they should spare you testing.

    - EPLs don't expire.

    - Products based on CC2640/CC2650 and CC2640R2 share the same EPL QDIDs.

    Please let me know if you need more details.

    Best regards,

  • 0 in reply to Clément
    Prodigy 30 points

    Thanks, Clément!  

    I may not have been clear, or maybe I'm misunderstanding the answer.  I'm not sure which.  These two modules I have referenced in my question are not made by TI.  They are both made by Laird and are the Sable-X and Sable-X-R2 modules.

    I believe that the two aforementioned Laird modules do not have EPL QDIDs.  I believe that they were only component QDIDs.  Though, to be honest, I don't think that I'm the trusted resource on this topic quite yet.  I could be misunderstanding this.

    If we assume that the modules we're talking about here do not have EPL QDIDs (or potentially a withdrawn QDID), the main question is whether or not we could still certify our end product using the TI QDIDs instead of the module's listing owner.  And, if so, what testing that might require.

  • +1 in reply to Ed Mandy
    TI__Guru** 101450 points

    Hi,

    I would recommend reaching out to the module maker to get their thoughts - I expected them to provide the proper QDIDs but I could not find them.

    In the case they do not provide the QDIDs you need, I *think* you can reference TI QDIDs (i.e. the ones I have pointed you to inside the app note). My understanding - to be confirmed by a BQC - is these modules match TI recommended design, hence TI QDIDs can be referenced without testing needed.

    Regards,

  • 0 in reply to Clément
    Prodigy 30 points

    Thank you for the help here.  We do have an outstanding question with the module maker, and we will be adding this to the discussion there, too.  Thanks again!