• State Resolved
  • Replies 15 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 52 subscribers
  • Views 398 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Related

CC2745R10-Q1: [BLE 6.0 CS DKC]Channel Sounding ranging results missing

Peisheng Yang
Intellectual 660 points
Part Number: LP-EM-CC2745R10-Q1

Tool/software:

Hi, Ti

*SDK version: 9.11.01.09 ,example: car_node & key_node

When using the Python script from the demo to perform Channel Sounding initialization and ranging measurements, I observed missing ranging results (e.g., after modifying the script to loop 60 times, only 40-50 results were generated). What could be the reason for this? Is it possible to add logging in the Python script to identify what occurs when no ranging results are reported?

Python script:python.zip

Test code: 5270.test_code.zip

Best regards!

Preston

  • +1
    TI__Genius 14705 points

    Hello,

    I apologize for the delay. We have limited bandwidth at the moment, and I will try to get an update to you as soon as possible.

    Thank you!

    Best,

    Nima Behmanesh

  • 0 in reply to Nima
    Intellectual 660 points

    Hi, Nima

    I apologize for accidentally clicking the 'Resolve' button by mistake.

    Is this related to not using the RREQ/RRSP roles? Currently, I'm following the test procedure in ble_device_car_node_with_distance.py, which re-enables the ranging function after each measurement cycle.

    Best regards!

    Preston

  • 0 in reply to Nima
    Intellectual 660 points

    Hi, Nima

    Will there be any information updates in the next couple of days?

    Best regards!

    Preston

  • 0 in reply to Peisheng Yang
    TI__Genius 14705 points

    Hello,

    Yes, I'm assigning this thread to an expert who should help you tomorrow.

    Best,

    Nima Behmanesh

  • 0 in reply to Nima
    TI__Expert 6115 points

    Hello Preston, 

    Can you provide the environment you are testing in? What is the distance, are you testing NLOS vs LOS, and is the CS setup around vehicles or indoors? 

    We have not seen a problem similar to this when not using RRSP/RREQ. I suspect the problem is due to the environment you are testing in, and the ability of the two devices to properly collect all the PCT samples. 

    Additionally, can you provide me with your CS configuration? Are you using 2x2 antenna config, what mode are you using, and what is your connection interval. 

    Is your desire to use Channel Sounding with the ranging profile, or are you looking to use L2CAP? 

    Let me know. 

    Thanks,
    Isaac

  • 0 in reply to Isaac Larson
    Intellectual 660 points

    Hi, Isaac

    Isaac Larson said:
    Can you provide the environment you are testing in? What is the distance, are you testing NLOS vs LOS, and is the CS setup around vehicles or indoors? 

    We conducted the testing in an open area with a range of 1 to 10 meters. The Anchor (CC2745) was placed inside the vehicle, while the UID (CC2340) was positioned outside. Tests were performed under both LOS and NLOS conditions. Currently, we have observed ranging data loss in both scenarios.

    Isaac Larson said:
    Additionally, can you provide me with your CS configuration? Are you using 2x2 antenna config, what mode are you using, and what is your connection interval. 

    We are currently using a 2×2 antenna config, operating in Mode 3, with the connection interval set to the default 30ms.

    Isaac Larson said:

    Is your desire to use Channel Sounding with the ranging profile, or are you looking to use L2CAP? 

    We hope to use Channel Sounding with the ranging profile.Since we need to transmit data via L2CAP, we are concerned about potential collision issues.However, we currently don't know how to enable ranging. Are there any relevant examples or documentation available?

    Best regards!

    Preston

  • 0 in reply to Peisheng Yang
    Intellectual 660 points

    Device roles: CC2340 (Reflector), CC2745 (Initiator)

  • 0 in reply to Isaac Larson
    Intellectual 660 points

    Hi, Isaac

    When will the information be updated?

    Best regards!

    Preston

  • 0 in reply to Peisheng Yang
    TI__Expert 6115 points

    Hello Preston, 

    Apologies on the delay. 

    The ranging profile, client and server, are supported within 9.11.01.xx SDK. This can be tested on your side. There is documentation within the SDK docs. Navigate to "sdk_root_dir/docs/ble5stack/ble5stack-users-guide.html". The RAS/RAP documentation can be found under the channel sounding section. 

    Do you see an increase in data loss depending on LOS or NLOS? When you see data loss, is the value 0xFFFF FFFF in decimal? Are you using custom hardware or TI EVM and antenna booster pack? 

    I have not observed any ranging loss on 9.11.01.09 SDK TI EVM and antenna booster pack, which is why I am asking more questions. 

    Let me know. 

    Thanks,

    Isaac

  • 0 in reply to Isaac Larson
    Intellectual 660 points

    Hi, Isaac

    Data loss occurs in both Line-of-Sight (LOS) and Non-Line-of-Sight (NLOS) environments, with more severe losses observed under NLOS conditions. During data loss events, we observe no data reporting — it appears that no events are uploaded from the board side, as shown below.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
***** procedure enable *****
Procedure Enable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
_io: []
event: 68
status: 0
conn_handle: 0
config_id: 0
enable: 1
aci: 7
pwr_delta: 10
sub_event_len: 55000
sub_events_per_event: 1
sub_event_interval: 0
event_interval: 3
procedure_interval: 0
procedure_count: 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Waiting for NWP_CS_APP_DISTANCE_EXTENDED_RESULTS
Distance Extended Results - initiator
----------------------------------------------------------------------
event: 0x61
status: 0
connHandle: 0
distance: 581
quality: 1706
confidence: 100
numMpc: 3
distanceMusic: [2271, 572, 1802, 601]
distanceNN: [0, 0, 0, 0]
numMpcPaths: [1, 3, 1, 4]
qualityPaths: [6596, 1706, 5324, 1626]
confidencePaths: [0, 100, 0, 100]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
***** procedure enable *****
Procedure Enable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
_io: []
event: 68
status: 0
conn_handle: 0
config_id: 0
enable: 1
aci: 7
pwr_delta: 10
sub_event_len: 55000
sub_events_per_event: 1
sub_event_interval: 0
event_interval: 3
procedure_interval: 0
procedure_count: 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Waiting for NWP_CS_APP_DISTANCE_EXTENDED_RESULTS
Distance Extended Results - initiator
----------------------------------------------------------------------
event: 0x61
status: 0
connHandle: 0
distance: 585
quality: 1973
confidence: 100
numMpc: 3
distanceMusic: [2330, 616, 1861, 601]
distanceNN: [0, 0, 0, 0]
numMpcPaths: [1, 3, 1, 3]
qualityPaths: [5866, 1816, 3712, 1973]
confidencePaths: [0, 100, 0, 100]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
***** procedure enable *****
Procedure Enable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
_io: []
event: 68
status: 40
conn_handle: 0
config_id: 0
enable: 0
aci: 7
pwr_delta: 10
sub_event_len: 55000
sub_events_per_event: 1
sub_event_interval: 0
event_interval: 3
procedure_interval: 0
procedure_count: 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
***** procedure enable *****
Procedure Enable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
_io: []
event: 68
status: 50
conn_handle: 0
config_id: 0
enable: 0
aci: 7
pwr_delta: 10
sub_event_len: 55000
sub_events_per_event: 1
sub_event_interval: 0
event_interval: 3
procedure_interval: 0
procedure_count: 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
***** procedure enable *****
Procedure Enable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
_io: []
event: 68
status: 40
conn_handle: 0
config_id: 0
enable: 0
aci: 7
pwr_delta: 10
sub_event_len: 55000
sub_events_per_event: 1
sub_event_interval: 0
event_interval: 3
procedure_interval: 0
procedure_count: 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
***** procedure enable *****
Procedure Enable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
_io: []
event: 68
status: 40
conn_handle: 0
config_id: 0
enable: 0
aci: 7
pwr_delta: 10
sub_event_len: 55000
sub_events_per_event: 1
sub_event_interval: 0
event_interval: 3
procedure_interval: 0
procedure_count: 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
***** procedure enable *****
Procedure Enable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
_io: []
event: 68
status: 0
conn_handle: 0
config_id: 0
enable: 1
aci: 7
pwr_delta: 10
sub_event_len: 55000
sub_events_per_event: 1
sub_event_interval: 0
event_interval: 3
procedure_interval: 0
procedure_count: 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Waiting for NWP_CS_APP_DISTANCE_EXTENDED_RESULTS
Distance Extended Results - initiator
----------------------------------------------------------------------
event: 0x61
status: 0
connHandle: 0
distance: 587
quality: 2038
confidence: 100
numMpc: 3
distanceMusic: [3092, 616, 1700, 616]
distanceNN: [0, 0, 0, 0]
numMpcPaths: [3, 3, 1, 3]
qualityPaths: [5728, 2038, 5850, 1833]
confidencePaths: [100, 100, 0, 100]

    Could additional logs be added to confirm what occurred during these incidents? We have tested both custom hardware and TI’s EVM evaluation module with antenna booster packs, and data loss was observed in both setups. Currently, further testing is being conducted using TI’s module (only fixed-point testing in LOS environments has been performed so far).

    Best regards!

    Preston

  • 0 in reply to Peisheng Yang
    Intellectual 660 points

    code&py.zip

    The uploaded files include my test code for the TI development board and the Python scripts.

  • 0 in reply to Peisheng Yang
    TI__Expert 6115 points

    Hello Preston, 

    I am a bit confused. The python script you provided has pwr_delta set to 0x80, which means there is not recommendation on the power delta, and the output you provide shows 10. Can you let me know what is happening with the pwr_delta? 

    Let me run some tests with the CC2745R10 Car Node and the CC2340 Key Node. I must've missed this point in the previous response. I have not observed this problem with CC27XX-to-CC27XX channel sounding. 

    I will get back to you with more information next Tuesday (08/26). 

    Thanks,

    Isaac

  • 0 in reply to Isaac Larson
    Intellectual 660 points

    Hi, Isaac

    Sorry for the delayed response. Regarding the pwr_delta value, it should be passed from the Python script. I need to sync with the test engineer about this. May I ask what is the typical setting for this value? What does it represent?

    Best regards!

    Preston

  • 0 in reply to Isaac Larson
    Intellectual 660 points

    Hi, Isaac

    I've noticed that the SDK has been updated to version 9.12.00.19. We have already integrated the new SDK version, and I believe subsequent issues can be tracked under version 9.12.00.19.

    e2e.ti.com/.../cc2745r10-q1-ble-6-0-cs-dkc-long-duration-ranging-issue-in-channel-sounding

    Best regards!

    Preston

  • 0 in reply to Peisheng Yang
    TI__Expert 6115 points

    Hello Preston, 

    Apologies for the delay, I was out of office for a few days. 

    I will close this ticket since a new E2E ticket has been opened for the new SDK. 

    Thanks,
    Isaac