CI Information

^{To view the history of this post, clich the 'edited' button above}
Build number: 6

Inputs:

Sources:

sdk-nrf: PR head: df5396212ad429e6a139518bf499d78137e5a911

Github labels

doc
│  ├── nrf
│  │  ├── app_dev
│  │  │  ├── device_guides
│  │  │  │  ├── fem
│  │  │  │  │  ├── fem_nrf21540_gpio.rst
│  │  │  │  │  │ index.rst
│  │  ├── releases_and_maturity
│  │  │  ├── releases
│  │  │  │  │ release-notes-changelog.rst
subsys
│  ├── mpsl
│  │  ├── fem
│  │  │  ├── Kconfig
│  │  │  ├── nrf21540_gpio
│  │  │  │  │ mpsl_fem_nrf21540_gpio.c

Outputs:

Toolchain

Version: 342151af73
Build docker image: docker-dtr.nordicsemi.no/sw-production/ncs-build:342151af73_bbe5b33786

Test Spec & Results: ✅ Success; ❌ Failure; 🟠 Queued; 🟡 Progress; ◻️ Skipped; ⚠️ Quarantine

• ◻️ Toolchain - Skipped: existing toolchain is used
• ✅ Build twister
  • sdk-nrf test count: 885
• ✅ Integration tests
  • ✅ test_ble_nrf_config
  • ✅ test-fw-nrfconnect-ble_samples
  • ✅ test-fw-nrfconnect-chip
  • ✅ test-fw-nrfconnect-rs
  • ✅ test-fw-nrfconnect-fem
  • ✅ test-fw-nrfconnect-thread
  • ✅ test-fw-nrfconnect-zigbee
  • ✅ test-sdk-find-my

Note: This message is automatically posted and updated by the CI

You can find the documentation preview for this PR at this link.

Note: This comment is automatically posted by the Documentation Publish GitHub Action.

@umapraseeda this is ready for final review

@peknis I think I fixed all nits you pointed out

@peknis I think I fixed all nits you pointed out

Actually, there would be one more nit. In the description of the process of using the FEM in GPIO mode, the last two steps should have an imperative verb (do something). Otherwise, they are not proper steps.

I'm confused and don't understand what's wrong.
In the sentence about nRF53 the workd "must" is not imperative enough? The text has been there for a long time.
The step for nRF54L somehow complex, but it explains all the details that need to be taken into account.

I'm confused and don't understand what's wrong. In the sentence about nRF53 the workd "must" is not imperative enough? The text has been there for a long time. The step for nRF54L somehow complex, but it explains all the details that need to be taken into account.

There is a clear difference between "You must do this" and "Do this". I agree the previous step has been there a while, but now we have a chance to fix this.

Okay, I get it. If changing from "You must do this" to "do this" is the only issue, then what about merging it as it is and fixing the what you pointed out as a separate PR. The reason is that this pattern with "you must do..." is used among all FEMs and I would like to fix them in one PR which will follow shortly after this one. I would like to avoid fixing unrelated stuff in a PR which introduces an awaited feature.

It also seems that this piece of documentation has never appeared in our docs, as it is missing from app_dev/device_guides/fem/index.rst

https://ncsdoc.z6.web.core.windows.net/PR-20273/nrf/app_dev/device_guides/fem/index.html

My bad, I was looking in a wrong place. Ignore my comment. Let's do the wording improvements in a separate PR as you suggested.

@martintv @nrfconnect/ncs-co-build-system @nrfconnect/ncs-doc-leads kindly asking for approval.