Added functionality to read the battery level from the CC2650

[mbruschi]

Since one of the latest firmware updates it's possible to read the battery power level and therefore I've added this functionality to the CC2650.js

[sandeepmistry]

@mbruschi thanks for submitting this!

There's a simpler approach where we can leverage noble-device features. Something like adding:

NobleDevice.Util.mixin(CC2650SensorTag, NobleDevice.BatteryService);

to lib/cc2650.js.

Would you mind trying that?

[sandeepmistry]

@mbruschi ping ...

[jahbini]

I am involved in developing a SensorTag app for clinical studies to monitor neurological symptoms. Battery usage is one of several firmware/application issues. I have been asked to add this capability. However, I can't find any reference to 'battery' or 'voltage' in my firmware sources available from T.I.

I am using the TI Cloud development tools. Nothing on-line seems to combine voltage monitor with the SensorTag 2650. I must be looking in the wrong places. Which version of the SensorTag 2650 firmware (out there in the T. I. jungle) has this feature?

[sandeepmistry]

@jahbini do you see any reference to an 0x180f service UUID or 0x2a19 characteristic UUID?

[jahbini]

Thanks for responding. I’m a big fan of your ble stack. Very nice. We opted for the Evothings stack, and we are stuck with it for the time being. Not my favorite vendor module.

As far as the battery level services you ask about, I’ve attached a screen shot of the T.I. service explorer app report of my sensor tag’s services. No 0x180f service.

I have also grepped for both values in the T.I. firmware sources. There are no matches for these values.

If there is other firmware that T.I. has…. i’m also unable to find any suitable power monitoring circuitry — it could be buried somewhere, but I see no opportunity for monitoring the battery level in either firmware or hardware.

Quite realistically, T.I. does not really want to make a consumer level product out of the SensorTag: it is just a base design for OEM’s. The OEM's are the connection to consumers, and T.I. does not want to compete with them. Leaving the battery monitoring out is part of that strategy. (as well as the terrible form factor)

Jim Hinds

On Oct 3, 2016, at 3:51 AM, Sandeep Mistry notifications@github.com wrote:

@jahbini https://github.com/jahbini do you see any reference to an 0x180f service UUID or 0x2a19 characteristic UUID?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/sandeepmistry/node-sensortag/pull/82#issuecomment-250984575, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABfNiypNNBMmDus0XF1A6KPsd6Dtc55Kks5qv-8hgaJpZM4JlHeo.

[jahbini]

After poking around a bit, I find that my TI development sources are at FW ver 1.2, TI has packaged a FW 1.3 in their “SimpleLink” application. And YES!! it does have battery level monitoring. That’s good.

However, at this moment, I am unable to find the source for this FW version. it does not show up on the TI tools and resource explorers. I can only compile and update with a Rev 1.2 baseline. That’s bad.

The only place this FW rev exists is seemingly tucked inside the SimpleLink app

I will have to keep looking. :-(

Jim-----

Thanks for responding. I’m a big fan of your ble stack. Very nice. We opted for the Evothings stack, and we are stuck with it for the time being. Not my favorite vendor module.

As far as the battery level services you ask about, I’ve attached a screen shot of the T.I. service explorer app report of my sensor tag’s services. No 0x180f service.

I have also grepped for both values in the T.I. firmware sources. There are no matches for these values.

If there is other firmware that T.I. has…. i’m also unable to find any suitable power monitoring circuitry — it could be buried somewhere, but I see no opportunity for monitoring the battery level in either firmware or hardware.

Quite realistically, T.I. does not really want to make a consumer level product out of the SensorTag: it is just a base design for OEM’s. The OEM's are the connection to consumers, and T.I. does not want to compete with them. Leaving the battery monitoring out is part of that strategy. (as well as the terrible form factor)

Jim Hinds … img deleted…

On Oct 3, 2016, at 3:51 AM, Sandeep Mistry <notifications@github.com mailto:notifications@github.com> wrote:

@jahbini https://github.com/jahbini do you see any reference to an 0x180f service UUID or 0x2a19 characteristic UUID?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/sandeepmistry/node-sensortag/pull/82#issuecomment-250984575, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABfNiypNNBMmDus0XF1A6KPsd6Dtc55Kks5qv-8hgaJpZM4JlHeo.

[jarvis-hal]

Any progress on the "pull request"?

[sandeepmistry]

@jarvis-hal still waiting for someone to look at my suggestion in https://github.com/sandeepmistry/node-sensortag/pull/82#issuecomment-241288978.

Maybe you could submit a new pull request?

[micahnyc]

hey guys, here: https://github.com/sandeepmistry/node-sensortag/pull/93

[sandeepmistry]

Closing in favour of #93, thanks again @micahnyc!