CC2340R2: CC2340R2

Hi Shammi,

Thank you for reaching out. We will look into your comments and get back to you as soon as possible. In the meantime, can you provide the SDK version you are using to create your project?

Best Regards,

Jan

Hi  ,

The waiver will not be  applicable as When the Consistency Check reports one or more inconsistencies in your ICS Form, navigate to the locked layer that should contain the ICS item that the Consistency Check has indicated should be supported. If the ICS item does not exist in the layer, then ES-25636 would apply to that inconsistency.

Bluetooth SIG has mentioned when raised ticket:
"If GAP and LL are both in the same QDID, it seems there was an error in the 201833 listing, so this invalid condition is correctly being shown. If you are unable to make changes to the GAP layer, please reach out to your supplier and ask them to submit an ICS Correction Request via a support request."

Regards,

Shammi

Hi Shammi,

The tests mentioned don't exist in TCRL 2022-1. TCW ES-25636 should then apply when qualifying TCRL-2024-2 (or TCRL-2024-1). 

Please make sure to keep the ICS unmodified - with the exception of the addition of the Bluetooth profiles you want to comply with. All the core features should be left untouched, including if you are not using them. 

In the meantime I'll reach out to our BQC to ensure nothing was missed. Please share the ICS you obtained so we can review it.

Thanks and regards,  

Hi Clement,

We have already received response from Bluetooth SIG that TCW ES-25636 cannot be applied. The consistency failure related PICS were present during the declaration time of QDID: 201833. As per SIG, its an error in the 201833 listing. Bluetooth SIG is asking if LL 3/9 "Extended Advertising" is not supported, then why are GAP items GAP 8/3 and 8/4 and GAP 20/5 and GAP 20/6 and GAP 20/7 supported in QDID QDID: 201833.

Regards,

Shammi

Hi, 

Thank you for these additional details. Give me a few days to get this sorted out with our BQC. 

Best regards,

Hi Clement,

Can you please update on above Query .

Regards,

Shammi

Hi Shammi, 

Thank you for your patience. I have discussed this issue with our BQC. 

Some work to obtain a subset qualification will be required on my side. I am starting this effort now and will let you know the timeline to expect as soon as I know it.  

Below are more details on the solution suggested:

When using a combination of QDID 196592 and QDID 201833, there will be few Core layer invalid. We can fix it by deselecting v5.3 since the chip referenced is a v5.4 design. Then we will have the following invalids: 

GATT
7:C.3 | If [CORE] (2a/53) and [GATT] (1a/1) are Supported then [GATT] (7/8) is Mandatory
10:C.10 | If [GATT] (1/2 and 4/25) and [CORE] (2a/50) are Supported then [GATT] (10/10) is Mandatory
---> These two invalids can be covered by TCW ES-25636. https://bluetooth.atlassian.net/browse/ES-25636

LL
LL > GAP | If [LL] and [GAP] (8/3) are Supported then [LL] (3/1a) is Mandatory
LL > GAP | If [LL] and [GAP] (8/4) are Supported then [LL] (3/5a) is Mandatory
LL > GAP | If [LL] and [GAP] (20/5) are Supported then [LL] (3/4b) is Mandatory
LL > GAP | If [LL] and [GAP] (20/6) are Supported then [LL] (3/1a) is Mandatory
LL > GAP | If [LL] and [GAP] (20/7) are Supported then [LL] (3/5a) is Mandatory
--> These invalids can't be waived by referencing TCW ES-25636. The best way to move forward is for TI to subset those GAP optional features. This is what I will take of in the upcoming days.

Best regards,