K32W041/K32W061 Timeout parameter for scan request wrong in v2.6 manual?

[ckielstra]

In the IEEE 802.15.4 Stack User Guide (JN-UG-3024 v2.6), there is a description for the Scan Duration parameter in chapter 6.1.13:  2 x u8ScanDuration + 1

I suspect this description to be wrong and that it is implemented as: : 2 ^ u8ScanDuration + 1
Just like in other timing parameters, e.g. MLME_SYNC.request in chapter 3.4.1

I tested several values, and with values >= 6 I get a timeout on a 500ms timer (200ms for the 2x formula, or 998ms on the 2^ formula). 

Can this be confirmed?

[Christine_Li · Accepted solution]

Hi, @ckielstra 

I checked IEEE Std 802.15.4™ ‐2020, and until now I agree with you.

Please refer to IEEE Std 802.15.4™ ‐2020 page 76 (6.3.1 Scanning through channels).

I will double confirm with our internal team after reading IEEE Std 802.15.4™ ‐2020 more.

Thanks for pointing this and have a nice day.

Best regards,

Christine.

[ckielstra]

@Christine_Li Thanks for the confirmation that the definition in the IEEE standard differs from the NXP documentation in JN-UG-3024.
I hope it's just a documentation error, could you confirm that the implementation is according to the IEEE standard?

[Christine_Li]

HI, @ckielstra 

Sure, I have created an internal case to track it.

Because it is an MAC layer implementation, I do not have access to the original code.

It may need some time to locate but I will keep you posted with updates.

By the way, would you mind share your test steps so that I can also have a try on my local side?

Best regards,

Christine.

[Christine_Li]

Hi, @ckielstra 

I have asked our internal team, and our R&D confirms that this part's implementation has passed the internal test and certification, means it should be only a documentation error.

Based on your test met time out error, we prefer to know your test method and detailed steps so that we can reproduce on our local. 

Could you please provide  your SDK version, test method and detailed steps?

Best regards,

Christine.

[Christine_Li]

HI, @ckielstra 

We have confirmed together with our R&D team that our implementation in code is correct.

But we could not share the code to you because it's MAC layer implementation and internally shared only. We have assigned related internal case to our documentation team to correct it in the next version document. Thanks again for pointing it out!

If you still have this issue, please share your SDK version and test steps in details to me as I mentioned before.

Thanks,

Christine.

[ckielstra]

@Christine_Li Thanks for the clear answer.