All-in-all, did I understand correctly none of those header values are
not required anymore?
hdr[0] own FW version. used by driver to print our own FW file version
hdr[1] --''--
hdr[2] vendor FW version. programmed to chip register but chip does not
need it. read back in order to detect if FW is loaded or not
hdr[3] padding. not used
hdr[4] number of FW blocks. driver could calculate it.
hdr[5] padding. not used
hdr[6] crc. not mandatory & driver could calculate it. not 100% FW
related, chip uses it for every write. verify xfer errors
hdr[7] --''--
regards
Antti
On 07/30/2014 09:50 PM, Matthias Schwarzott wrote:
On 29.07.2014 21:45, Antti Palosaari wrote:
Do you need to know whole firmware version?
There is only 1 byte to be used and it is called patch version.
How did you obtain it, from
sniff?
Yes - but it also is visible in code near crc version (see below).
What happens if you don't tell fw version to chip at all?
In other places it is read to verify a fw was uploaded (compare to be
not equal 0x00).
I guess the exact value is never needed (so just for information).
But I did not try it.
Usually, almost 100%, firmware version as well all the other needed
information, is included to firmware image itself. I don't remember many
cases where special handling is needed. One (only one?) of such case is
af9013, where I resolved issues by calculating fw checksum by the
driver. IIRC chip didn't boot if there was wrong checksum for fw.
The checksum is not needed to get the device working.
The chip itself only calculates it when uploading data - and the driver
reads out the calculated checksum and compares it to the expected value.
It is only a verification of the correct upload.
Own headers and checksums causes troubles if I someone would like to
extract different firmwares from various windows binaries to test.
If windows driver needs to know that kind of things, those are usually
found very near firmware image from the driver binary. Most often just
dump 32 bytes after firmware image and it is somewhere there. Or before
firmware image. That is because those are values are stored to same
source code file => compiler puts that stuff ~same location.
I had a look at the driver - the code itself has the constants compiled
in - they are really mixed with the assembly code.
Rewritten in C it is code that has fixed values as parameters to functions.
ret = load_firmware(firmware,
0x12, /* patch version */
48, /* block count */
0xaa0c /* crc */
);
I also would prefer your version with static const variables near the data.
static const unsigned char firmware[] = {
0x00,0x11,0x22,0x33,0x44,0x55,0x66,0x77,
0x88,0x99,0xaa,0xbb,0xcc,0xdd,0xee,0xff,
};
static const unsigned int firmware_checksum = 0x01234567;
static const unsigned int firmware_version = 0x0000002b;
Regards
Matthias
--
http://palosaari.fi/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
