Pages: [1]
Author Topic: 29f400/29f800bb chips  (Read 5437 times)
4ringpieces
Full Member
***

Karma: +4/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 232


« on: February 01, 2015, 10:43:19 AM »

looking at buying some flash chips incase of problems

As I had one die today and it wouldn't boot mode or erase when unsoldered and put in programmer, swapped chip out of swap ecu of matching chip numbers and it bench flashed all ok.

Next time I might not be so luckly to have a friend with a spare chip. Hence this question

Can someone confirm, that if the chip is 29f800bb-70, then I can fit a new 29f800bb -70 or -90 chip but I cannot fit a -55 as -55 is a slower chip?
Logged
daniel2345
Full Member
***

Karma: +11/-7
Offline Offline

Posts: 197


« Reply #1 on: February 01, 2015, 05:36:04 PM »

No, wrong.

-55 means 55ns acces time.
Its the time until data is aviable after adress request.

CPU is almost fixed on that time. If you put in a -90, no valid data is aviable after the 55ns which the cpu expects, Software will fail.
Logged
4ringpieces
Full Member
***

Karma: +4/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 232


« Reply #2 on: February 02, 2015, 04:10:35 AM »

So I should be able to fit -55 instead of -70/90?

looking to stock up on 400/800bb and bt chips and rather have "generic" chips than lots of different speed chips etc
Logged
daniel2345
Full Member
***

Karma: +11/-7
Offline Offline

Posts: 197


« Reply #3 on: February 02, 2015, 09:44:32 AM »

Yes, you can always use faster chips = lower access time = smaller number.

BT/BB i never dealt with extensivly, just use what is inside original.

There are loader modules which check chip id, then Software will not start, and reprogramming via obd may not be possible.


So with a set 55ns 800BB an 800BT you should be ready. Mostly. Smiley
Logged
4ringpieces
Full Member
***

Karma: +4/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 232


« Reply #4 on: February 02, 2015, 12:08:27 PM »

Thanks for your help Daniel Smiley
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.013 seconds with 17 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0s, 0q)