I REALLY welcome your effort to finally create a new (release) H300 bootloader!
> The current released H300 bootloader (v5) is now over 3 years old, and has
> several issues that have been resolved in SVN* since::
> - Unable to start the device using the standard (non-LCD) remote.
I don't care about this - I nearly never use my (non-LCD) remote anymore.
> - USB fails to work at all (on some devices)
Never had problems - neither with release nor with SVN versions.
> - Lacks RTC alarm support (* also needs FS#7814)
Would be nice - but is not important for me
> - Loud audio thump at startup
Never noticed this.
> - Hard disk click entering USB (on some devices)
Sometimes I have this...
> More details at http://www.rockbox.org/wiki/IriverBoot
What does "Shut off backlight properly in USB mode" mean?
That one sounds important to me
> Personally, I'm successfully running a bootloader I built,
I currently still run the unmodified v5 bootloader on my stock H340.
Actually I've to say I returned to it again - after I had some draining issues
with a SVN version.
I reported this as comment at FS#4753 - as you already saw (but I missed your
comment - sorry).
I'll now have a deeper look at it and try to find out what causes the
> Current status if I understand correctly:
> - Only LinusN has the hardware to recover a bricked H300
> - Only petur had booting problems
> - LinusN thinks he knows which SVN revision introduced the problem
> (but I can't find a number!)
So could LinusN tell us the revision so that we're able to have a look at the
differences to the previous version?
And what happens if some of us bricks his device?
Is it worth the effort to send it to LinusN to unbrick it?
> I fear there are relatively few H300 owners around now, although it remains
> my player of choice, so this might be a last chance to bring the bootloader
> up to speed.
I'm absolutely willing to help and bring this to a reasonable "end".
Though my spare time for coding or even for analysis is very limited.
But I'll do my best...
> Does this sound like a reasonable idea, or a waste of time? Any other
It's absolutely reasonable!
I think we should also have a (re)look at several flyspray patches regarding
the bootloader code, noticeably FS#3039 and FS#9202
and also have a deeper look at some feature requests e.g. in FS#5504 or FS#8085.
Matthias (aka Massa)
Received on 2009-11-19