2025-10-16 8:12 AM
Hi,
There is confusion with NUCLEO-WL55JC frequency range. Maybe 2 distinct Web pages should be considered for NUCLEO-WL55JC1 and NUCLEO-WL55JC2.
Board page: https://www.st.com/en/evaluation-tools/nucleo-wl55jc.html
Frequency range indicated: 150 MHz to 960 MHz (none JC1 or JC2 precision, as there were only one model)
AN5406 - How to build a LoRa® application with STM32CubeWL
Frequency range indicated for NUCLEO-WL55JC2 at page 7: 470 MHz and 520 MHz
Frequency range indicated for NUCLEO-WL55JC1 at page 7: 865 MHz and 930 MHz
UM2592 - STM32WL Nucleo-64 board (MB1389)
Frequency range indicated for NUCLEO-WL55JC2 at page 3: 433 to 510 MHz
Frequency range indicated for NUCLEO-WL55JC1 at page 3: 865 to 928 MHz
What is the real frequency range of NUCLEO-WL55JC2 and NUCLEO-WL55JC1?
When I bought the boards, I did not pay attention to the JC2 precision, since I wanted a 915 MHz frequency band as it is indicated in the board page. I lost a lot of time struggling with the Cube examples that did not work because I configured it to work with 915 MHz.
2025-10-16 9:18 AM - edited 2025-10-16 9:20 AM
Hello @sboucher78
For the frequency range of both evaluation boards. I think each board should work on both frequency ranges (from AN5406 and UM2592) since there is not a big difference between both ranges. But the correct range should be the one on the UM2592. I think both documents have the same values. @Imen.D could you please have a look at this.
Both boards are based on the same MCU but with different HW RF configuration to be compatible with LB (Low-Band) or HB (High-Band). So, using a frequency that is not on the supported band may work but with Low RF performance. For the webpage, I think your suggestion may be considered by the Marketing team in ST. But a webpage for both boards with a clear note that mention the difference between both boards revisions should be fine. I agree with you that this may be confusing.
Best Regards.
II
2025-10-16 9:36 AM - edited 2025-10-16 9:44 AM
@Issamos wrote:I agree with you that this may be confusing.
Indeed - pretty sure this has come up before ...
PS:
Ah, yes - here we go:
etc, ...