Online Talk to our
support team or
sales department.
Oct 21st, 2021, 8:18pm
Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
Pages: 1  Reply Reply  Notify of replies Notify of replies  Print Print
   Author  Topic: Interference with Bluetooth  (Read 3340 times)
kmf
FabulaTech Forum Newbie
*



View Profile   WWW         
Gender: male Posts: 2
Interference with Bluetooth
« on: Nov 20th, 2007, 7:28am »
Quote Quote  Modify Modify

Hi. I have been trialing the CE virtual serial port kit and have encountered a problem with it interfering with the Bluetooth support on my device.
 
I have a TDS Ranger (http://www.tdsway.com/products) device. It is a Windows Mobile 5.0 (PocketPC 2003) device, CPU: ARM920T PXA270, 64Mb RAM / 512 Mb Flash / 520MHz.
 
I am finding that after I install VSPK-CE and set up a pair of ports (4,5) that the Bluetooth device can no longer be activated. The bluetooth support uses ports 7 and 8, but I haven't gone near these.
 
If I delete the pairing and even uninstall VSPK I cannot reactivate Bluetooth. Only completely reflashing the OS seems to allow me to get it going again. I'm not sure yet whether this is due to registry damage, DLL issues, or what, but if anyone has any ideas this would be most appreciated.
 
We are planning a software feature / legacy application support based on this working so are quite keen for help. Apart from the BT issue, VSPK seems to work very nicely and otherwise does exactly what we want.
 
Many thanks. -Ken
IP Logged
Andrew
FabulaTech Forum Moderator
FabulaTech Forum Senior Member
*****



View Profile   WWW         
Gender: male Posts: 427
Re: Interference with Bluetooth
« Reply #1 on: Nov 21st, 2007, 12:00am »
Quote Quote  Modify Modify

Hi Ken,
Thanks fro feedback. Never seen such behavior with bluetooth.
 
1) Does it appears if you create virtual COM4, COM5 ports? Or even if you creates virtual COM ports with different names, e.g. VCP1-VCP2, VCP3-VCP4.
 
2) Also what happens if you create COM4-COM5, delete them then and then try to use bluetooth.
 
3) If the issue does not appear at stage 2, please tty to create COM4-COM5, use bluetooth, remove COM4-COM5, try to use bluetooth again.
 
Thanks!
IP Logged

Andrew Scott

FabulaTech
===================
http://www.fabulatech.com
kmf
FabulaTech Forum Newbie
*



View Profile   WWW         
Gender: male Posts: 2
Re: Interference with Bluetooth
« Reply #2 on: Nov 21st, 2007, 2:38am »
Quote Quote  Modify Modify

Hi
 
In reply to your post I have been extensively testing, and in short I have found what causes the problem and how to work around it, so I can now move ahead with VSPK. Great! Thanks for the reply.
 
Details of what I found:
I reflashed the OS and tested the BT behaviour with VSPK and this is what I saw:
-To start with, Bluetooth can be enabled and disabled OK. I reset and rebooted and it is still ok.
-With Bluetooth enabled, I installed VSPK. Bluetooth can still be enabled and disabled.
-I rebooted/reset. Bluetooth can still be enabled and disabled ok.
-I started the VSPK U/I app, but didn't create any port pairs. BT still ok, including after reboot.
-I started the U/I app and created the pair 'Com4'/'Com5'. BT is OK.
-I deleted the pair com4/5 and BT is ok. Rebooted - still ok.
-I created the pair 2/3 and BT was ok. I deleted 2/3 and BT was ok. I reset and BT had died (couldn't be started).
 
I then reflashed the OS and repeated the above, except this time I created 2/3 but didn't delete it before rebooting. Before the reboot, BT was ok. After reboot, BT is dead.
 
Once BT has died, no amount of deleting pairs, rebooting, or uninstalling VSPK will recover it, until I reflash the OS.
 
I am wondering (even though the U/I only shows 1 com port: 'COM1') if there is actually a second serial port used by the OS for communicating with the BT chipset, and perhaps establishing a virtual port on COM2 or COM3 interferes with this invisible port, and deleting pairs and/or uninstalling VSPK does not restore the settings?
 
Anyway, so long as I only use COM4/5 it seems I'm all right, so I will strenuously recommend these settings in any associated documentation (and will mention the consequences). This means at least that we have a workable solution using VPSK and so can forge ahead with our plans.  
 
Again, many thanks. VPSK looks like a great piece of work.
-Ken
IP Logged
Pages: 1  Reply Reply  Notify of replies Notify of replies  Print Print

« Previous topic | Next topic »