CC2540, nRF51822 application development comparison

Looking at the application development in the nRF51822 SDK, it is quite different from TI.

The development framework of TI CC2540 is relatively complete. This software framework has been used since the zigbee chip CC253x. By the CC2540, except for the radio frequency, the other peripheral modules and software framework of the chip have not changed, which shows that TI's architecture is quite complete. TI's software level is relatively clear, OSAL, HAL, application layer, etc. are reasonably divided; OSAL, HAL provide relatively rich functions, and it can be said that writing applications is handy

The application layer code of nRF51822 looks relatively "simple" or crude. The first impression of looking at the code is: how is it like the code I wrote when I was learning the C language of the microcontroller in college. . . Of course, such code is not necessarily a bad thing, and many people may need such code. Nordic provides some peripheral "drivers", and the overall feeling is worse than TI's HAL. For example, the UART driver is blocking, while TI can use DMA to realize non-blocking UART data transmission and reception. This is limited by the hardware of the nordic chip. There is no DMA in 51822. Nordic’s documentation is weaker than TI, TI has at least development guides and other documents; Nordic only has function descriptions generated by doxygen, and development basically depends on comments in routines

Article source: http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_7cedb56d0101clhb.html