I have discussed this with Per Kris

I have discussed this with Per Kristian, who has brought me up to speed on this matter and given some facts.
This is a chicken and the egg issue, that we have to live with….

You are partly right. Of unknown reason it was selected a flash circuit during the development of LCU 6334 that consumed more power than desirable. A conservative calculation method for power consumption tells us that a lock without Zigbee or BLE, theoretically has a battery lifetime of 39 months. In this calculation the old flash circuit gives approximately 4 months less battery lifetime – 35 months. Note that for a lock with zigbee and BLE the difference will be less as total battery lifetime is shorter, and the relative extra consumption impacts the overall lifetime less. As a better measurement we could say that battery lifetime is expected to be around 10 % shorter with the old flash circuit, compared to the new flash circuit, not yet implemented.

The introduction of a new flash circuit, that eliminates the undesired effect on battery lifetime, has been on hold waiting for the bootloader release from GAM 2 demoed today. Hence, as you point out, the LCU 6334 produced up to now all have the old flash circuit, with a higher current consumption.
The new bootloader and the HW change are connected, meaning that we could not implement the new flash circuit before the new bootloader was ready (for information the new bootloader will though handle also the old flash circuit).

Now, back to the chicken and the egg. For the purpose of having the new FW tested, we have no other choice than to use the currently available HW, having the old flash circuit in place, and accept the 10% less battery lifetime. Waiting for new HW to be produced will take too much time. On the other side, the 10% decrease will probably not be noticeable for customer, but if it is – we should rather swap out later. It is more important now to have the HW installed and the FW beta tested.

We will follow up on this from the Locks team and release the documentation needed to have the new flash circuit implemented asap, and we will work with sourcing to make sure we implement the new flash in production accordingly.

結果 (中文) 1:

我与讨论过这每克里斯蒂安，给我带来加速在这个问题上，给出了一些事实。这是一只鸡和蛋的问题，要我们住在一起......你都部分正确。它被选择了不明原因的消耗更多功率比可取的 LCU 6334 发育过程中的闪光电路。用电负荷的保守的计算方法告诉我们，没有 Zigbee 或 BLE，锁从理论上讲有 39 个月电池寿命。在这种计算旧闪存电路给出了大约 4 个月少的电池寿命 — — 35 个月。请注意，为锁与 zigbee 和 BLE 差异会少作为总电池寿命较短和相对的额外消费影响的整体寿命较少。为更好地衡量我们可以说，电池寿命是预计约 10%与旧闪存电路短、 不相比新闪存电路，尚未执行。介绍一种新型的闪存电路，消除了对电池寿命的不良的影响，已被搁置，等待 GAM 2 格雷今天从引导装载程序释放。因此，正如你所指出的 LCU 6334 达产生现在都有老的闪存电路，具有较高的电流消耗。新的引导装载程序和硬件变化相连，意思我们不可能实施新的闪存电路之前新的引导加载程序已经准备好 （虽然新的引导加载程序将处理也老闪存电路的信息）。Now, back to the chicken and the egg. For the purpose of having the new FW tested, we have no other choice than to use the currently available HW, having the old flash circuit in place, and accept the 10% less battery lifetime. Waiting for new HW to be produced will take too much time. On the other side, the 10% decrease will probably not be noticeable for customer, but if it is – we should rather swap out later. It is more important now to have the HW installed and the FW beta tested.We will follow up on this from the Locks team and release the documentation needed to have the new flash circuit implemented asap, and we will work with sourcing to make sure we implement the new flash in production accordingly.

結果 (中文) 3:

我和克里斯蒂安讨论过这个问题，他在这件事上给我带来了速度，给了一些事实。这是一个鸡和蛋的问题，我们必须生活在…你是对的。不明原因它被选择了闪光电路LCU 6334消耗更多的权力比可取的发展过程。一个保守的功耗计算方法告诉我们，一个没有ZigBee或双锁，理论上有一个39个月的电池寿命。在这个计算中，旧的闪光电路提供的电池寿命约为4个月，35个月。注意，与ZigBee和BLE的差异将作为总的电池寿命短不锁，和相关的额外消费影响整体寿命少。作为一个更好的测量，我们可以说，电池寿命预计将大约10%较短的旧的闪光电路相比，新的闪存电路，尚未实施。一个新的闪光电路的介绍，消除了对电池寿命的不良影响，已被搁置，等待从GAM 2引导释放今天演示。因此，正如你所指出的，LCU 6334产生了现在都老闪光电路，具有较高的电流消耗。新的引导程序和硬件的变化是相连的，这意味着我们不能在新的bootloader准备实施新的闪光电路（信息新的bootloader会虽然也处理旧的闪光电路）。现在，回到鸡和蛋。因为新的固件测试的目的，我们没有其他选择，比使用现有的硬件，在适当的地方有旧的闪光电路，并接受少于10%的电池寿命。等待是产生新的硬件将花费太多的时间。另一方面，10%的减少可能不会对客户来说是显而易见的，但如果是的话，我们应该在以后再进行交换。更重要的是现在有硬件安装固件测试。我们会跟进这个锁团队，并释放所需的文件，有新的闪存电路实现尽快，我们将与采购工作，以确保我们在生产中实现新的闪光。