We have not tested this configuration in our labs. But theoretically, there is nothing limiting this sort of coex. Although, I am really curious about why you want to club two BLE modules together? Is there some feature which is not present in CYW43438 BLE which is making you opt for this configuration or some other constraint?
Relevant doc: https://www.cypress.com/file/298336/download
Thanks for the link to AN214852.
There are some other constraints which dictate this configuration which I can only share with you by PM.
Is there information on how priorities would be decided between the modules e.g. can the SECI protocol allow the 343026 to be given priority over the 43438? Also is there a detailed document available that covers the protocol?
Could you also provide some information on how priorities would be decided between the modules?
For example could the system be made to give communication priority to the CYBT-343026 over the CYW-43438?
1 of 1 people found this helpful
I understand the constraints, hence DM'd you over some further queries. Unfortunately, there is no detailed public documentation available for arbitration mechanism used by CY/IFX chips. But on a very high level, traffic priority is provided based on type of communication or frame exchange taking place in b/w wlan and bt/le core (think in terms of a2dp/tcp traffic situation). Maybe, you can relate to this more by imagining a QoS type of mechanism as in 11e spec but in a further more customized manner as per each frame basis.
Also will the use of coexistence between the modules impact compliance of either module?