CC2640: CC2640 RCV03 test

Hi Stanford,

You are only showing results for interferer at 2401 MHz and 2402 MHz, does that mean that interferers at all other frequencies are ok?

Have any of the 5 allowed relaxations been leveraged? If not, will this make the device pass (it will basically change the C/I requirement from -27 dB to -17 dB)?

Regards,
Fredrik

Hi Fredrik,

All interfere frequencies test on channel 2 are failed. But channel 19 and channel 37 are passed.
What's the meaning of the 5 allowed relaxations been leveraged?
Is there any configuration related should be changed?

Hi Fredrik,

They use CC2640F128 5x5 package, and RF internal bias with differential RF output.
In IAR, I use CC2650DK_5XD for 5x5 package. But for RF internal bias with differential RF output, there is only CC2650EM_5XD and CC2650EM_7ID, and now I used CC2650EM_7ID as RF configuration. Does this set have problem? If so, could you provide CC2650EM_5ID configurations?

Now we use Launchpad CC2650 v1.1 and Launchpad CC2640R2F v1.0 do the same test, they have the same results on RCV03 test too.

Hi Stanford,

Using CC2650EM_7ID for RF configuration is correct.

The relaxation is explained in the BLE PHY Test Spec:
"For each individual measurement the C/I requirement may be relaxed for a maximum of five interference frequency settings. The C/I-performance shall in this case be equal to, or better than -17 dB (Interference level at least 17 dB higher than wanted signal level). "

In other words, the requirement of -27 dBm can be relaxed to -17 dBm for 5 interferer frequencies.

This is not something we have seen in testing or validation before, so there could be an issue with the test setup also.

Regards,
Fredrik

Hi Stanford,

From the test report you sent me it is clear that they fail consistently at around 50% PER for all interferer channels. That does not really make sense.

What sensitivity are they measuring for the various channels? Can they try to run the C/I tests with the wanted signal at different frequencies (2402 MHz, 2404 MHz, 2408 MHz, 2410 MHz)?

Regards,
Fredrik

Hi Fredrik,

In BQB RCV03 test, the interference singal level is according the below table:

And for sensitivity, they test lowest, middle and highest frequency, and sensitivity are all passed the test.

Hi Stanford,

What actual sensitivity are they measuring for all BLE channels with the test setup? I am not asking if they pass the BT PHY test requirements, but actual dBm values.

Can they try to run the C/I tests with the wanted signal at different frequencies (2402 MHz, 2404 MHz, 2408 MHz, 2410 MHz)? - In other words, move the wanted signal to different frequencies and see if that changes the results?

Regards,
Fredrik

Hi Fredrik,

Wanted signal at frequencies 2402 MHz, 2404 MHz, 2408 MHz, 2410 MHz are all pass the test.
And the sensitivity are lower than -97dBm.

I find that all test base on SDK 2.2 have this issue.
When I use the SDK1.5 on CC2640R2F, it passes the test. So it seems like that this issue relates to the SDK version.

BTW, where can I download the old SDK version of CC2640/CC2650?

Hi Stanford,

Let me try to replicate this with a CC2650 LaunchPad and BLE Stack 2.2.2.

You said earlier that CC2640R2F also failed, but now you are saying that it passes with SDK 1.50. Which SDK did it fail with?

There is a link to archived releases from the BLE Stack download page. It will take you here: www.ti.com/.../BLE-STACK-ARCHIVE

Regards,
Fredrik

Hi Fredrik K,

CC2640 SDK v2.2.2.25 and CC2640R2F SDK v2.2.00.49 are failed. CC2640R2F SDK v1.4.00.45 is OK.

Hi Stanford,

I just ran a CC2650 LaunchPad with BLE Stack 2.2.2 on our tester here. I did not see any failures. See attached results.

/cfs-file/__key/communityserver-discussions-components-files/538/CC2650LP_5F00_BLE222_5F00_RCV_5F00_BV_5F00_03.pdf

Regards,
Fredrik

Hi Fredrik,

Could you send me your hex file? I can use your hex file to do the test again.

Hi Stanford,

I used the pre-built hex file for HostTest that comes with BLE Stack 2.2.2.

Regards,
Fredrik

Hi Fredrik,

Which launchpad version do you test?

Customer test CC2540 and CC2640R2F Lauchpad v1.0 with SDK1.4 are OK. But CC2640, CC2650 Launchpad v1.1 and CC2640R2F Launchpad v1.0 with SDK2.2 are failed.

Hi Stanford,

I tested a CC2650 LP, rev. 1.1.

Hi Fredrik,

Thanks for your help. The issue is because of TUV test platform. Customer change to another certification company, and now they pass the test.