SIGFOX_API_start_continuous_transmission
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎2024-02-01 9:14 AM
Using this API returns 0x3157 error code after running SIGFOX_API_close successfully (return code is 0), anyone tried that? What are we missing here?
BTW - Same behavior observed when using ST provided Sigfox_AT_Slave_DualCore example out of the box with the NUCLEO-WL55 board so we can rule out any HW or SW issues , we probably miss some other API call before using the SIGFOX_API_start_continuous_transmission or some ST library bug....
Thanks for your help
P.S. Opened a ticket with ST support, will post here on any further developments.
- Labels:
-
STM32WL series
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎2024-02-01 9:24 AM
@ASchw.1 wrote:Using this API returns 0x3157 error code
So have you looked-up what that code means?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎2024-02-01 10:26 AM
Thanks Andrew,
Well the lower part is defined like this:
SFX_ERR_API_START_CONTINUOUS_TRANSMISSION (sfx_u8)(0x57) /*!< Error occurs during the start continuous transmission : check the manuf error code to get the error */
The high part which is the manuf error code - I couldn't find any reasonable documentation.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎2024-05-31 6:11 AM
Hi,
did you manage to get an answer to this?
We're facing the same issue.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎2024-06-01 11:25 AM
Nothing to work with. They found bugs in their SDK that is only relevant for the Dual Core implementation. The single core version is working fine. No updates or proper answer as for when a fix is expected. ST suggest using single core variant. We ended up rewriting lots of their code as a workaround.
