Tip / Sign in to post questions, reply, level up, and achieve exciting badges. Know more

ModusToolbox™ General Forum Discussions

adch_3371496
Level 1
Level 1
5 likes given 5 sign-ins First question asked

I have an application which requires use of a 43438 WiFi/BLE combo along with a second co-located BLE module (343026).

This plan is to link these together over the 2-wire co-existence UART interface bus.

The 43438 is used for arbitration and therefore would be the master. So, can the 343026 be setup as a slave in this configuration?

Thanks.

0 Likes
1 Solution
RaktimR_11
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
500 likes received 250 likes received 100 likes received

We have not tested this configuration in our labs. But theoretically, there is nothing limiting this sort of coex. Although, I am really curious about why you want to club two BLE modules together? Is there some feature which is not present in CYW43438 BLE which is making you opt for this configuration or some other constraint?

Relevant doc: https://www.cypress.com/file/298336/download

View solution in original post

4 Replies
RaktimR_11
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
500 likes received 250 likes received 100 likes received

We have not tested this configuration in our labs. But theoretically, there is nothing limiting this sort of coex. Although, I am really curious about why you want to club two BLE modules together? Is there some feature which is not present in CYW43438 BLE which is making you opt for this configuration or some other constraint?

Relevant doc: https://www.cypress.com/file/298336/download

Thanks for the link to AN214852.

There are some other constraints which dictate this configuration which I can only share with you by PM.

Is there information on how priorities would be decided between the modules e.g. can the SECI protocol allow the 343026 to be given priority over the 43438? Also is there a detailed document available that covers the protocol?

Could you also provide some information on how priorities would be decided between the modules?

For example could the system be made to give communication priority to the CYBT-343026 over the CYW-43438?

0 Likes

I understand the constraints, hence DM'd you over some further queries. Unfortunately, there is no detailed public documentation available for arbitration mechanism used by CY/IFX chips. But on a very high level, traffic priority is provided based on type of communication or frame exchange taking place in b/w wlan and bt/le core (think in terms of a2dp/tcp traffic situation). Maybe, you can relate to this more by imagining a QoS type of mechanism as in 11e spec but in a further more customized manner as per each frame basis.

Also will the use of coexistence between the modules impact compliance of either module?

0 Likes