Rockbox

Tasklist

FS#2569 - ihp_100 support for fwpatcher

Attached to Project: Rockbox
Opened by Jonas Häggqvist (rasher) - Friday, 08 July 2005, 16:24 GMT
Last edited by Jonas Häggqvist (rasher) - Saturday, 09 July 2005, 12:25 GMT
Task Type Patches
Category Build environment
Status Closed
Assigned To No-one
Operating System
Severity Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 0%
Votes 0
Private No

Details

This should include theoretical support for both
ihp_100 and ihp_120 files for fwpatcher, which should
decide which bootloader to patch with.

I have only tested it sporadically, but it appears to
be working correctly. I have only included one original
checksum for ihp_100, since I only have one lying
around, and Linus hasn't released a bootloader.bin yet.

checksums.h is no longer used - 3 new files are used
instead.
This task depends upon

Closed by  Jens Arnold (amiconn)
Saturday, 09 July 2005, 12:12 GMT
Reason for closing:  Invalid
Additional comments about closing:  Logged In: YES
user_id=988982

It didn't work as-is, because there was a major bug in the
table search.
Cvs fwpatcher now supports both H110/H115 and H120/H140,
with a slightly different approach. It is also safer,
because it checks the exact patched md5 for a given
unpatched md5.
Comment by Jens Arnold (amiconn) - Saturday, 09 July 2005, 12:12 GMT

It didn't work as-is, because there was a major bug in the
table search.
Cvs fwpatcher now supports both H110/H115 and H120/H140,
with a slightly different approach. It is also safer,
because it checks the exact patched md5 for a given
unpatched md5.
Comment by Jonas Häggqvist (rasher) - Saturday, 09 July 2005, 12:25 GMT

Excellent. Glad to see someone who knows C took a look at
it. It involved a lot of guesswork from my side, so it was
bound to be broken some way or other.

I thought about including final checksums for each model
seperated, but I figured if a file with a valid md5 was
produced, it was pretty safe to assume that it was the one
the user wanted (I guess it's more prone to human error from
the coders' side though).

Loading...