Forums | developer.brewmp.com Forums | developer.brewmp.com

Developer

Forums

Forums:

Which device image type in the Client Installer for BTIL is used for the Motorola V3c and the Audiovox 8910 handset.

The choices are:

ADS10arm7
ADS12arm7
ADS12arm9

RVCT20arm925T32enum
RVCT21arm11
RVCT21arm9

could not find any documentation to explain the files.

I'd recommend ADS12arm7 for the 8910, and ADS12arm9 for the V3c.

I'd recommend ADS12arm7 for the 8910, and ADS12arm9 for the V3c.

nparrish wrote:I'd recommend ADS12arm7 for the 8910, and ADS12arm9 for the V3c.
I have loaded the ADS12arm9 for the V3c. According to the 'Read Me' file, I am suppose log back into Client Installer and establish a connection. When I do log back in the following error is shown:
Connection Status: Error. BTIL is on device but didn't respond
History:
BTIL is present on device, try on the data port if different, or reset the phone.
thanks,
dalaga

nparrish wrote:I'd recommend ADS12arm7 for the 8910, and ADS12arm9 for the V3c.
I have loaded the ADS12arm9 for the V3c. According to the 'Read Me' file, I am suppose log back into Client Installer and establish a connection. When I do log back in the following error is shown:
Connection Status: Error. BTIL is on device but didn't respond
History:
BTIL is present on device, try on the data port if different, or reset the phone.
thanks,
dalaga

Hello.
I would like to know which device image type in the Client Installer for BTIL can be used for the Qualcomm TM6275.
thanks in advance.

Hello.
I would like to know which device image type in the Client Installer for BTIL can be used for the Qualcomm TM6275.
thanks in advance.

Go here: http://www.cdmatech.com/products/mobile_processors.jsp and look at the datasheet for the desired MSM to find out which ARM core is used.

Go here: http://www.cdmatech.com/products/mobile_processors.jsp and look at the datasheet for the desired MSM to find out which ARM core is used.

hello
Thanks a lot for the link.
I looked at the dataset of MSM6275 and it has ARM926EJ-S but i cannot decide between the options given to me i.e ADS12arm9 and RVCT21arm9. can you please point to some document which can describe the difference?. Can you also please tell where can I find the test signature for this device? I could not get it on developer Extranet.
thanks in advance

hello
Thanks a lot for the link.
I looked at the dataset of MSM6275 and it has ARM926EJ-S but i cannot decide between the options given to me i.e ADS12arm9 and RVCT21arm9. can you please point to some document which can describe the difference?. Can you also please tell where can I find the test signature for this device? I could not get it on developer Extranet.
thanks in advance

The only difference between those images is the compiler that was used to generate them (i.e. ADS 1.2 vs RVCT 2.1). Both should work, but go with the ADS 1.2 version for the greatest chance of success.
What problems are you having with the testsig generator?

The only difference between those images is the compiler that was used to generate them (i.e. ADS 1.2 vs RVCT 2.1). Both should work, but go with the ADS 1.2 version for the greatest chance of success.
What problems are you having with the testsig generator?

dalaga wrote:I have loaded the ADS12arm9 for the V3c. According to the 'Read Me' file, I am suppose log back into Client Installer and establish a connection. When I do log back in the following error is shown:
Connection Status: Error. BTIL is on device but didn't respond
History:
BTIL is present on device, try on the data port if different, or reset the phone.
thanks,
dalaga
Sorry. Before we drift to far from my problem. Is there an answer to my posting above?

dalaga wrote:I have loaded the ADS12arm9 for the V3c. According to the 'Read Me' file, I am suppose log back into Client Installer and establish a connection. When I do log back in the following error is shown:
Connection Status: Error. BTIL is on device but didn't respond
History:
BTIL is present on device, try on the data port if different, or reset the phone.
thanks,
dalaga
Sorry. Before we drift to far from my problem. Is there an answer to my posting above?

Did you change COM ports? The COM port you use for diag is, in the vast majority of cases, not the same COM port for BTIL. I'd look in your Device Manager and find the COM port associated with the phone that's not labeled 'diagnostic'.

Did you change COM ports? The COM port you use for diag is, in the vast majority of cases, not the same COM port for BTIL. I'd look in your Device Manager and find the COM port associated with the phone that's not labeled 'diagnostic'.

I'm having some problems to install the BTIL Client.
I used the BTILClientInstaller.exe app and it said that BTIL client was installed.
But when I try to Init device, I'm getting BTILEXTENSION_STATUS_AUTHORIZATION_FAILED that means my .sig file is wrong or invalid.
I'm sure I'm using a valid .sig file, because I'm able to run a helloworld app on the phone with the same .sig
The .sig file that I'm using follows the .sig pattern and is in the "...\BTIL Development Kit\Host\sig" folder.
So, I would like to ask if someone already got this problem? Do I need to have any special .sig file (different from the one that we get from "TestSigGenerator")? Is there any configuration I need to do on the device or BTIL Host?
Thanks in advance,
Tiago.

I'm having some problems to install the BTIL Client.
I used the BTILClientInstaller.exe app and it said that BTIL client was installed.
But when I try to Init device, I'm getting BTILEXTENSION_STATUS_AUTHORIZATION_FAILED that means my .sig file is wrong or invalid.
I'm sure I'm using a valid .sig file, because I'm able to run a helloworld app on the phone with the same .sig
The .sig file that I'm using follows the .sig pattern and is in the "...\BTIL Development Kit\Host\sig" folder.
So, I would like to ask if someone already got this problem? Do I need to have any special .sig file (different from the one that we get from "TestSigGenerator")? Is there any configuration I need to do on the device or BTIL Host?
Thanks in advance,
Tiago.

Can you tell us which device this is for? The V3C, at least earlier versions (I haven't tried newer ones), suffered from the problem described below:
Some handsets, even those 3.1.4 and later, don't have the necessary underlying "hooks" to run BTIL. Because of that, they can't validate signatures, and BTIL "fails safe" by not allowing anybody access to the phone. A solution for current commercial devices is being investigated, but the focus is on getting widespread adoption in future devices.

Can you tell us which device this is for? The V3C, at least earlier versions (I haven't tried newer ones), suffered from the problem described below:
Some handsets, even those 3.1.4 and later, don't have the necessary underlying "hooks" to run BTIL. Because of that, they can't validate signatures, and BTIL "fails safe" by not allowing anybody access to the phone. A solution for current commercial devices is being investigated, but the focus is on getting widespread adoption in future devices.

toddb wrote:Can you tell us which device this is for? The V3C, at least earlier versions (I haven't tried newer ones), suffered from the problem described below:
Some handsets, even those 3.1.4 and later, don't have the necessary underlying "hooks" to run BTIL. Because of that, they can't validate signatures, and BTIL "fails safe" by not allowing anybody access to the phone. A solution for current commercial devices is being investigated, but the focus is on getting widespread adoption in future devices.
Yes, it is V3C. Thanks for the answer.
Regards,

toddb wrote:Can you tell us which device this is for? The V3C, at least earlier versions (I haven't tried newer ones), suffered from the problem described below:
Some handsets, even those 3.1.4 and later, don't have the necessary underlying "hooks" to run BTIL. Because of that, they can't validate signatures, and BTIL "fails safe" by not allowing anybody access to the phone. A solution for current commercial devices is being investigated, but the focus is on getting widespread adoption in future devices.
Yes, it is V3C. Thanks for the answer.
Regards,