Jean-Christian,
interesting. And from the diagram I see your point.
Of course the N95 is a full function mobile phone and based on that N95
diagram I would expect that the heavy lifting of the 3G voice and HSPA
protocols for voice and non-voice (packet) data above the physical layer
would be implemented/managed between the Baseband and the Application
processor shown in that diagram as Texas Instruments devices. This in
turn would suggest to me that that whether a device of this hardware
design does or does not support 3G voice (not HSPA packetized voice)
would be determined by whatever firmware/software is on the device and
not by the hardware components in this design.
I should also note that one of the mobile device component suppliers, ST
Ericsson, for their AERO RF TRANSCEIVER RF component family does
mention in their marketing brochure available as an Adobe Acrobat .pdf
at the www page whose url is
http://www.stericsson.com/sales_marketing_resources/RFBR_1.pdf
that these components can be used for either
Tri-band HSPA + quad-band GSM/GPRS/EDGE digital cellular handsets
or
Tri-band HSPA + quad-band GSM/GPRS/EDGE digital cellular data modems
In other words, the components suppliers such as ST Ericsson realize
that their customers (the mobile handset manufacturers) may be
interested in non-voice data devices as well as full function handsets.
But here again that differentiation ( data device only vs full handset)
would be determined by baseband firmware/software.
With all this chop shopping/reverse engineering/teardown being performed
by analysis companies like isupply and others it makes me wonder if the
handset manufacturers actually cooperate with such outfits to make the
teardown analysis a little bit easier. On the other hand, by taking the
product "off the shelf" and "out of the box", without "help" from the
manufacturer, the teardown specialist is assured of starting with an "on
the street" product vs one that may have been "juiced" by the manufacturer.
I should add that the article on page 78-80 (Adobe Acrobat pp 82-84) in
the issue of Electronic Products Magazine available at the www page
whose url is:
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/hearst/ep0508/index.php?startid=80
provides an impressive amount of detail from the "chop" that isupply
performed on the N95. It does reinforce my point that the mobile device
designers are acutely aware of the components of product cost Further
detail pm the N95 component workup is provided on the www page whose url is:
http://www2.electronicproducts.com/Nokia_N95-whatsinside-61.aspx
Best Regards,
John Holmblad
Acadia Secure Networks, LLC
* *
Jean-Christian de Rivaz wrote:
> John Holmblad a écrit :
>> http://www.smta.org/files/CTEA_High_Density_Pkg_Trends-Carey-Portelligent.pdf
>>
>> You can see, from viewing the iphone PCB discussed on pp 13-17 of
>> that presentation. that, in addition to having separate power amps
>> for each of 3 frequency band groupings (it is a quad band device).
>> the device also has a Multi-chip package (MCP) to handle both a
>> GSM/EDGE chip as well as a WCDMA chip needed for 3g baseband
>> processing. I could foresee that another designer, with an
>> application that did not require 2G "backward compatibility", might
>> :design out: the 2G chip ( "hold the 2g" if you will) in order to
>> save space and power in the design. This, however, would make the
>> device un-useable in a network that was not 100% 3G/UMTS, UNLESS the
>> device was being used ONLY for non-voice data access and not for
>> "traditional" voice.
>
> John,
>
> Nokia will more likely use this kind of integration:
>
> http://www.phonewreck.com/wiki/index.php?title=Nokia_N95#Block_Diagram
>
> The Quad-band GSM/GPRS/EDGE + Dual-band UMTS/HSPDA chain use 1 chip
> for the baseband, 1 chip for the transceiver and 1 chip for the
> amplifier.
>
> Best Regards,
_______________________________________________
maemo-users mailing list
maemo-users@xxxxxxxxx
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-users
