Am Di 26. August 2008 schrieb Mike Montour: > Joerg Reisenweber wrote: > > >> Hmm, usually it's the other way around - a recent u-boot in NAND is > >> better equipped to survive than the older u-boot in NOR. But it can't > >> hurt to try. All older hardware has a high degree of randomness > >> coming from the small SYS capacitor anyway. > > > > This is on a rather new device 20080626, probably A6 (have no torx atm :-/ ) > > The effect is 100% reproduceable for both booting on old and not booting on > > new U_Boot. Only randomness is AUX-LED flashing very short (<0.1sec) when > > fail on normal boot w/o bat, whereas it flashes slow (~0.5s on) for 4 > > to "4.5" times with a dead Nokia BL-5C. Result no boot on new U_Boot anyway. > > You might want to try the test with a USB cable to a PC (capable of > 500mA) instead of the charger, Powered via (this particular) 100/500mA USB-Host, none of both U_Boot would boot without battery. Though it's happily working on linux without GSM just on USB-power, after boot with battery. New (NAND) will do nothing but a short flash (same as with USB-wall-powersupply), Old (NOR) will happily startup to menu and boot kernel from NAND, but kernel breaks down after showing first line of console for 0.1sec.
> or to apply the patch from my first email > to your NAND u-boot. If you point me to a kernel-image I might flash with dfu-util, I for sure will try what I find with this one. > > My FR is a GTA02v5 with datecode 20080619 and it will not power up at > all without a battery (due to the "small SYS capacitor" mentioned > above?) so I can't test this scenario. You tried with OM USB power supply, and (factory) NOR-boot? /jOERG
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
