We have a product that incorporates the BGM121 (specifically BGM121A256V1) as an NCP, and are looking into Bluetooth SIG registration. I was surprised to find that the QDID that came up, 88831, seems to cover only the RF PHY, whereas for the BGM111 there is a complete "end product" registered. I'm guessing that we would use 88831 in conjunction with QDIDs 81105 and 82817 to form a complete end product. Does anyone have experience with the amount of additional testing and certification necessary? Is there a full "end product" qualification in process for the BGM121, and if so, is an ETA available?
It is true that the BGM111 and BGM113 (and their radio boards) are qualified as End Products, and in fact you could make the qualification listing of your end product by simply referencing to the existing end product listing of the BGM111 (https://www.bluetooth.org/tpg/QLI_viewQDL.cfm?qid=30732) which in turn is based on the following components:
https://www.bluetooth.org/tpg/QLI_viewQDL.cfm?qid=30772 --> RF-PHY of the EFR32xG1
https://www.bluetooth.org/tpg/QLI_viewQDL.cfm?qid=30730 --> Blue Gecko firmware’s Link Layer
https://www.bluetooth.org/tpg/QLI_viewQDL.cfm?qid=30731 --> Blue Gecko firmware’s Host part
On the other hand our current SiP modules, the BGM121 and BGM123 and BGM11S, themselves are not qualified as End Products. When searching for them you will find them to be part of a design named BGM121 which actually corresponds to the qualified RF-PHY Component for our current SiP modules.
So, again, for the BGM121 we do not have an end product listing, and instead we only have the following components:
https://www.bluetooth.org/tpg/QLI_viewQDL.cfm?qid=33250 --> RF-PHY
https://www.bluetooth.org/tpg/QLI_viewQDL.cfm?qid=30730 --> Blue Gecko firmware’s Link layer
https://www.bluetooth.org/tpg/QLI_viewQDL.cfm?qid=31191 --> Blue Gecko firmware’s Host part
Basically, you will have to use the above components when you will firstly "Create Project" under the "Build Your Test Plan" at the SIG qualification web pages, and once done you will then "Start Listing Process" and proceed by selecting your project instead of referencing an existing design.
I attempted to create an End Product qualification project using QDIDs 88831, 81105, and 91422 as you suggested; after correcting the product type to End Product and turning off L2CAP 2/45, I was able to get an ICS with no inconsistencies and generate a test plan. However, it appears that since the QDIDs you provided are of type Component (tested) rather than Controller/Host Subsystem, we are not allowed to inherit any of your test evidence and must instead run the BGM121 through an extensive list of tests (I counted 459 of them) at our own expense. This looks like it will also introduce considerable delay to our product release.
Is there any way around this? It looks like the only possibility is for SiLabs to obtain declaration IDs either for both of Controller Subsystem and Host Subsystem or for End Product (about which I inquired in my last post). Are any of these in process, and if so, when are they expected to complete?
you can re-use our tests for the three components, there is no additional testing needed by you.
The SIG tool will create you a test plan and you are expected to upload a test evidence document. However, this does not mean you need to perform the same tests again by yourself. You can for example upload the test plan document with notes that "testing not needed, because using tested components".
The Bluetooth knowledge base appears to be in conflict with this - entry KB0010211 indicates that QDIDs of type Component (tested) need additional testing to be qualified and used in an end product listing. They indicate that some (which to me implies not all) of the test evidence can be reused. I haven't been able to determine which tests have already been done as part of your Component qualification. In the attached test plan, can you identify which tests can be specified as reusing your evidence?
Retesting is needed only if the layout has changed. For example, customers building their designs around or EFR32 SoC (instead of using a module) will likely need to do some testing on their own.
In case of modules like BGM121 the layout of the BLE part has not been changed and thus no retesting is needed.