Skip to main content
PADAM.1
PADAM.1
Associate III
September 12, 2021
Question

Bug in STM32_WPAN of STM32CubeWB Firmware Package V1.12.1

  • September 12, 2021
  • 4 replies
  • 1420 views

Hello

In function "SVCCTL_UserEvtFlowStatus_t SVCCTL_App_Notification( void *pckt )" of generated file "app_ble.c":

In "switch/case HCI_DISCONNECTION_COMPLETE_EVT_CODE:", the variable "BleApplicationContext.BleApplicationContext_legacy.connectionHandle" is cleared ( "=0") before used to call "Custom_APP_Notification(&handleNotification);".

You should initialize

handleNotification.ConnectionHandle = disconnection_complete_event->Connection_Handle;

instead of

handleNotification.ConnectionHandle = BleApplicationContext.BleApplicationContext_legacy.connectionHandle;

If not, the customer application will never know which connection has finished and cannot associate disconnection events to connection events...

Best regards

Paul

This topic has been closed for replies.

4 replies

Buster
Buster
Associate
September 14, 2021

Being new to BLE and having just installed V1.12.1, what's the severity of this bug? Do you have to reboot the application every time you want to make a new connection, since the first isn't properly disconnected?

Buster
Buster
Associate
September 14, 2021

Scratch that. I just installed 1.2.0. I better go get some coffee...

PADAM.1
PADAM.1Author
Associate III
September 17, 2021

Hi Buster

It is application dependent: if the application must free resources allocated to a specific connectionHandle during connect event, it needs the connectionHandle in disconnect event...

Did you install (old) version 1.12.0? I did not find 1.2.0 on st.com...

BR

Paul

Buster
Buster
Associate
September 17, 2021

Paul,

You're right. I'm still on 1.12.0 of the co-processor binary. It's the Firmware Upgrade Service that's at version 1.2.0.

So, would you recommend staying on 1.12.0 of the co-processor binary, or moving to 1.12.1? I guess for this particular bug it shouldn't matter, since the bug is at the application level, right? From what I can tell, since the changes listed in the 1.12.1 release notes are only in the coprocessor firmware, the generated application code is the same in versions 1.12.0 and 1.12.1

But I suppose it's usually better to be on the latest firmware?

Thanks!

Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement