View Full Version : Flashed back to original 6210 s/w

08-05-2002, 05:00 PM
I think I'll just stick to updating my phone's current software rather than trying to run 6250 software in it.

Ultimately, there's 2 problems that bug me, one more than the other.

1) Lack of 1800 band. I could easily remedy this by taking the laptop into work tomorrow and copying the entire flash (20 - 60) from a fresh 6250 in our stock. But even then, that's not really a guarantee it would work. I'll explain why later.

2) CARK-91 car kit battery charging issue. Everyone who has a car kit and has had this conversion performed has been complaining about their car kits not charging the battery. In light of this information, I've decided that I really needed to stick to my 6210 software. I sometimes go on long drives and often forget to take my AC charger with me. So given that problem of mine, I like the idea of my car kit still charging my phone!! This was what really made me turn back.

So out came the 6210 flash I copied from a virgin 6210 phone, updated it with the 5.56 MCU+PPM and didn't bother with the virgin 6210 EEPROM file that's out there (which is meant to be bug-ridden anyway). Besides, on nbrc.co.uk, their instructions only mention using Rollis to perform the MCU+PPM update without a single mention of flashing the EEPROM code using Dejan or similar.

Phone is now back to normal and running the latest update.

Now, on to my theory why a virgin 6250 20 - 60 full flash (i.e. with EEPROM) will not work on a 6210 to resolve the 1800MHz band issue:

My theory takes into account the car kit battery charging issue. We're dealing with phones which are, technically, identical in terms of their hardware. So why should we be having problems with the car kit not charging? I figure CARK-111 (the 6250 car kit) does use pin 2 (Charge Control) in a different way than what CARK-91 does with our 6210 (and earlier models using the same kit).

So given this concept, the 1800MHz issue may be the same as well. Perhaps the DSP is addressed differently in the 6250 than what the 6210 is and that's why we have then diminished performance.

But the paradox here is that we're still dealing with the same hardware, and most likely the same interconnections!! To really confirm this, I'd need to see schematics (yeah, fat chance!). There is a possibility that perhaps something can be readjusted in Wintesla but I can't get v7.05 with the NHM-3 dll's to work in my Win98SE equipped laptop. If this is the case, then the solution does exist. Until then, I'm left with no option but to conclude that like the car kit charging problem, we're faced with a hardware incompatibility between these 2 EEPROMs and should stick to our 6210 code if at least 1 of these 2 issues is a problem in our day-to-day use.