| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mdavej
Expert
Joined: 08 Oct 2003
Posts: 4501
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2003 1:17 pm Post subject: Problem with 2104 RDF |
 |
|
I get an error with the new 2104 RDF I never got with the old one. IR gives an error that says something like "problem with fixed data at $019".
I noticed the new RDF has:
[FixedData]
$019=$09
$01F=$14
But the original RDF distributed with IR only has:
[FixedData]
$01F=$14 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Nils_Ekberg
Expert
Joined: 02 Aug 2003
Posts: 1689
Location: Near Albany, NY
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2003 1:58 pm Post subject: Re: Problem with 2104 RDF |
|
|
| mdavej wrote: | I get an error with the new 2104 RDF I never got with the old one. IR gives an error that says something like "problem with fixed data at $019".
I noticed the new RDF has:
[FixedData]
$019=$09
$01F=$14
But the original RDF distributed with IR only has:
[FixedData]
$01F=$14 |
The [FixedData] section of the 2104 RDF has been the same since atleast the distribution of IR3.21a and b. Which version of IR are you using? and when are you getting the message re: fixed data error?
I will check it out on one of my 2104's
_________________
Nils
Files Section
Diagnosis File Section |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nils_Ekberg
Expert
Joined: 02 Aug 2003
Posts: 1689
Location: Near Albany, NY
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2003 3:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think I see the answer here. My guess is that the IR image that you have was built some time ago with an older version of the RDF and possibly an older version of IR but more than likely just an older RDF. Sometime after you built your image someone made a change to the RDF to correct an error or problem that was happening. The fixed data entry that was added effectively is protecting a register in the remote so it does not get corrupted. This is more than likely a fix for a problem that you may not have seen until you tried a newer RDF.
So what does this mean to you, you have two options, 1) edit the RDF and remove the first entry under [FixedData] or 2) rebuild the image with the newer RDF. Either way should get you back on the road.
_________________
Nils
Files Section
Diagnosis File Section |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mdavej
Expert
Joined: 08 Oct 2003
Posts: 4501
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2003 12:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Error message also prompted to replace the fixed data at $019. I was afraid to do that not knowing whether the later RDF was correct. Now I've rebuilt the image with the later RDF as you suggested, and all is well.
Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nils_Ekberg
Expert
Joined: 02 Aug 2003
Posts: 1689
Location: Near Albany, NY
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2003 12:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mdavej wrote: | Error message also prompted to replace the fixed data at $019. I was afraid to do that not knowing whether the later RDF was correct. Now I've rebuilt the image with the later RDF as you suggested, and all is well.
Thanks |
Good, glad it is working for you and in the end it is best to be on the latest RDF anyway.
_________________
Nils
Files Section
Diagnosis File Section |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johnsfine
Site Admin
Joined: 10 Aug 2003
Posts: 4766
Location: Bedford, MA
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2003 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mdavej wrote: | | Error message also prompted to replace the fixed data at $019. I was afraid to do that not knowing whether the later RDF was correct. Now I've rebuilt the image with the later RDF as you suggested, and all is well. |
For those who hit this in the future, I'm pretty sure this particular item of fixed data ($019 in a 15-2104) is best to let IR.EXE fix for you when it asks. Unfortunately there are other items of fixed data that shouldn't be "fixed". Those not matching indicate that the wrong RDF is selected.
IIRC, this is the one associated with that nasty feature of the 15-2104 that scrambles the keypad (I think it's a really stupid attempt to stop competitors from using the 2104's built in database to build their own). Many different values are OK (don't turn on the nast feature). The RDF has one particular value, since that does no harm and avoids potential harm. But as you saw, IR has no way to distiguish other safe values from the unsafe values. You either have the official safe value or it complains. There's no benefit to a different safe value so no reason not to let it fix it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
File Section
Wiki
