Rockbox Development > New Ports
SanDisk Sansa c200v2, m200v4, clipv1, clipv2, clip+, and fuzev2
funman:
This needs to be done by the e200 testers.
I remember fragilematter has made some tests but don't remember which exactly
As for overwriting the OF, its not visible through usb interface so no problem, we just need to find its exact size on the nand to skip it when reading.
atomikpunk:
Yes right, but would you mind updating (and reuploading) an updated version of your mkamsboot patch including this change? I think you hardcoded the 0x100 multiplier if I remember correctly...
And right for the filesystem, that could do the trick (though I still have my reserve).
I'll try the (new) patched mkamsboot once it is done on an e200 firmware and check its disassembly in case I see something wrong with it. Maybe we can coordinate with the e200 testers so we can talk "live" about it, maybe this weekend?
funman:
Here is a diff to svn checkout.
It uses 0xff * 0x200 as the "rom block" size (use normal test.S with it)
E200 testers, anyone ? ;)
EDIT: this week end I'm available, I'm on European time (UTC+2) but I can stay awake late; let's meet on #rockbox ?
But next week end I live the country where I live in and I'll have to look for a place to live and a job so I will hold on rockbox hacking :'(
EDIT2: I remove the patch since it doesn't work
fragilematter:
Okay, just so that anyone is advised, the mkamsboot 0xff * 0x200 rom block size firmware bricks sansa e200s... try it at your own risk
atomikpunk:
Bha damn... Thanks fragile_matter. I'll check the patch, create a patched firmware tonight and see what it looks like. If the firmware looks clean, well I'll give up god damn :'( (obviously on that firmware block size field topic, I won't give up that easily on the project itself ;D)
But I really wonder how come there is a field for that (firmware block size) in the header but they wouldn't use it ???
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version