Ajay, On Thu, 2024-02-08 at 20:57 +0000, Ajay.Kathat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Hi David, > > > On 2/6/24 22:07, David Mosberger-Tang wrote: > > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > > > > Document > > > > ATWILC1000/ATWILC3000 > > Baremetal Wi-Fi/BLE Link Controller Software Design Guide > > > > https://tinyurl.com/yer2xhyc > > > > says that bit 0 of the CRC7 code must always be a 1. > > > > I confirmed that today with a logic analyzer: setting bit 0 causes > > wilc1000 to accept a command with CRC7 enabled, whereas clearing bit 0 > > causes wilc1000 to reject the command with a CRC error. > > > > The change looks okay to me. Just curious, if the command CRC7 failure > is observed during the wifi operation or it was created by explicitly > clear bit0 in the code. Often I have tested with enable_crc7 enabled but > didn't observe into any command failure. Yeah, the module doesn't seem to always reject CRC7 sums with bit 0 cleared - otherwise I think we'd have noticed this error sooner. I'm not sure what causes the WILC1000 to either ignore or pay attention to bit 0, but I have definitely traces captured where CRC7s with bit 0 cleared resulted in status 0x03 (bad CRC) whereas it always seems to work with bit 0 set. Since the documentation also says that it should b set, it's probably safer to go with that. --david
