Regression on U-boot without batery [was: u-boot low-battery handling]

[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, or to apply the patch from my first email 
to your NAND u-boot.

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.