View Single Post
Posts: 11 | Thanked: 24 times | Joined on Aug 2015
#2750
Originally Posted by joerg_rw View Post
The "principal design" of Neo900 is under my responsibility ...
No offence meant. We can all see that you're the guy holding project together, and we all appreciate it greatly.

As I read it, the bugtracker page you link to says that for security reasons the sys_boot5 pin will be linked to the Hall switch (which senses the state of the battery cover - i.e. battery cover off; sys_boot5=1), and that for additional security it may be possible to hardwire the sys_boot5 low, and hence override the Hall switch and not allow the boot sequence to be modified at all. Is this right?
 

The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to ibero For This Useful Post: