如何证明无线电设备指令（2014/53 / EU）符合SPWF01SC / SPWF04SC？

我们设计的产品使用SPWF01SC + Sagrad天线（如数据表中所述），并考虑迁移到SPWF04SC + Sagrad天线。然而，查看数据表，两个模块仅经过EN 300 328 v1.9.1测试，而新的无线电设备指令（2014/53 / EU）似乎要求测试EN 300 328 v2.1.1标准，其中包括一个新接收器阻止测试。
我们希望将Sagrad天线与SPWF04SC一起使用，因此需要使用我们的电路板和天线重复EN 300 328测试至v2.1.1。我注意到有一个'etf_mode'配置变量可用但没有关于etf_mode的不同值的工程测试函数的文档。因此，我有一些关于通过合规性测试获取产品的问题：
1）etf_modes是否记录在任何地方，或者您能告诉我应该将它们设置为什么，以便根据EN 300 328测试模块？
2）v2.1.1中新的接收机阻塞测试要求模块以低于10％的分组差错率执行，信号出现在与被测试信号相邻的频率上;是否可以停止接收机的跳频以进行此测试，还可以配置另一个SPWF模块在单个RF信道上向其发送数据？如果是这样，那么验证我们是否满足＆lt; = 10％PER，从一个模块向另一个模块发送大量短UDP数据包的最佳方法是什么？
非常感谢，
史蒂夫



以下为原文




We've designed a product that uses the SPWF01SC + Sagrad antenna (as specified in the datasheet) and would like to consider migrating to the SPWF04SC + Sagrad antenna. Looking at the datasheets however, both modules have only been tested to EN 300 328 v1.9.1 whereas the new Radio Equipment Directive (2014/53/EU) appears to require testing to the EN 300 328 v2.1.1 standards which include a new receiver blocking test.
We wish to use the Sagrad antenna with the SPWF04SC and so would need to repeat the EN 300 328 tests to v2.1.1 with our board and the antenna. I noticed that there's an 'etf_mode' configuration variable available but no documentation as to what the engineering test functions are for different values of etf_mode. I've therefore got a few questions about getting our product through the compliance testing:
1) Are the etf_modes documented anywhere or can you tell me what they should be set to in order to test the module under EN 300 328?
2) The new receiver blocking test in v2.1.1 requires that the module performs with less than a 10% packet error rate with a signal present on a frequency adjacent to the one under test; is it possible to stop the frequency hopping of the receiver for this test and also to configure another SPWF module to send data on a single RF channel to it? If so then what would be the best way to verify that we're meeting the <=10% PER, send lots of short UDP packets perhaps from one module to the other?
Many Thanks,
Steve