supplierdeeply

S90 Porting Thread

  • 397 Replies
  • 77726 Views
*

Offline ERR99

  • ****
  • 339
  • Publish
    Re: S90 Porting Thread
    « Reply #290 on: 25 / April / 2010, 03:10:39 »
    Advertisements
    Damned! I forgot to update the files under  platform\generic for the S90.  :haha
    I posted now the missing updates to the "[REQ]Adding new cameras, applying patches into trunk (with source code prepared)" thread.

    *

    Offline ERR99

    • ****
    • 339
  • Publish
    Re: S90 Porting Thread
    « Reply #291 on: 25 / April / 2010, 03:57:50 »
    I don't know, if the following problem is caused by the script I used or if it is a little problem of the S90-Port :

    I tried to use the LUA-Script br_dev05.lua, which can be found here :
    http://www.wirklemms.de/chdk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=8072#8072

    On my S90, it works until Line 262. Then I get an error because the expression list_jpg[count_jpg] returns NIL.
    This indicates that there are no JPG's. The reason is, that no WAV-File was generated a few lines before (Line 222).

    I'm not a programmer, but I think, the function raw_merge_add_file(result_crw(i))   (Line 219) or the funtion raw_merge_end()   (Line 223) is not working - but I get no error message, not on display and not in the logfile.
    I scanned the whole CHDK-dirrectory for the definitions of these functions, but didn't find this strings.

    Additional information : When using the script, I have a tmp16_1.tmp file in the root-Directory of the SDHC-Card, which ist a little bit bigger than the RAW-Files. Perhaps this helps to locate the error.

    I think i found the problem. In raw_merge.c there is a rename function call:

    #define TEMP_FILE        "raw16.tmp"
    #define TEMP_FILE_NAME   "A/raw16.tmp"
    #define TEMP_FILE_NAME_1 "A/raw16_1.tmp"

    rename(TEMP_FILE_NAME_1,TEMP_FILE);

    The second parameter TEMP_FILE is not so good for cameras with DryOS 2.3#39, because this OS does not like pathname without a leading devicename "A/". So the rename of raw16_1.tmp to raw16.tmp failes and leads to the following error. So another CAM_DRYOS_2_3_R39 patch in the CHDK core is needed to fix this.

    Update: Even with this patch, the script failes later. It throws a error because of the function getImageDirs().
    It look likes this function searches for all image directorys by removing all dirs from the list which are not contains the substring "CANON".
    But this is a problem on the S90/G11. Because Canon now uses another sheme to name the directorys (without the CANON substring, it is now some sort of day/month string used). So the script needs also a adaption for the S90/G11 image directory naming.
    « Last Edit: 25 / April / 2010, 13:54:16 by ERR99 »

  • Publish
    Re: S90 Porting Thread
    « Reply #292 on: 25 / April / 2010, 06:02:43 »
    I forgot to update the files under  platform\generic for the S90.

    The additions to kbd.c for the G11 and S90 are not required.
    They are only used by cameras whose wait_until_remote_button_is_released() is not in their own platform kbd.c code.

  • Publish
    Re: S90 Porting Thread
    « Reply #293 on: 25 / April / 2010, 12:47:09 »
    I noticed a new build 886, but the build failled to complete due to errors.


    *

    Offline ERR99

    • ****
    • 339
  • Publish
    Re: S90 Porting Thread
    « Reply #294 on: 25 / April / 2010, 12:56:00 »
    In revision 886, the S90 port is not integrated. So i dont know what failed, but it could not be the S90 port. ;)

  • Publish
    Re: S90 Porting Thread
    « Reply #295 on: 25 / April / 2010, 13:09:33 »
    Thanks for the info. I was hoping the S90 was integrated in the new build. I guess we'll have to wait a while longer.

    *

    Offline ewavr

    • ****
    • 1057
    • A710IS
  • Publish
    Re: S90 Porting Thread
    « Reply #296 on: 25 / April / 2010, 13:35:59 »
    So i dont know what failed, but it could not be the S90 port. ;)
    Code: [Select]
    **** Copying duplicate Firmwares
    mv: `./bin/sx200is-100c-0.9.9-886-full.zip' and `./bin/sx200is-100c-0.9.9-886-full.zip' are the same file
    make: *** [batch-zip-complete] Error 1


    *

    Offline schnurrhahn

    • *
    • 6
    • Canon S100, Firmware 101A
  • Publish
    Re: S90 Porting Thread
    « Reply #297 on: 25 / April / 2010, 15:07:49 »
    I posted a problem with LUA-Script br_dev05.lua, which seems not to work on S90.

    I think i found the problem. In raw_merge.c there is a rename function call:

    #define TEMP_FILE        "raw16.tmp"
    #define TEMP_FILE_NAME   "A/raw16.tmp"
    #define TEMP_FILE_NAME_1 "A/raw16_1.tmp"

    rename(TEMP_FILE_NAME_1,TEMP_FILE);

    The second parameter TEMP_FILE is not so good for cameras with DryOS 2.3#39, because this OS does not like pathname without a leading devicename "A/". So the rename of raw16_1.tmp to raw16.tmp failes and leads to the following error. So another CAM_DRYOS_2_3_R39 patch in the CHDK core is needed to fix this.

    Update: Even with this patch, the script failes later. It throws a error because of the function getImageDirs().
    It look likes this function searches for all image directorys by removing all dirs from the list which are not contains the substring "CANON".
    But this is a problem on the S90/G11. Because Canon now uses another sheme to name the directorys (without the CANON substring, it is now some sort of day/month string used). So the script needs also a adaption for the S90/G11 image directory naming.

    Thank you very much ERR99 for the quick response !
    So I will wait until the CAM_DRYOS_2_3_R39 patch is available.
    Perhaps I could try to do the adaption of the script to the new Canon diretory structure.
    Canon S100, Firmware 101A


    *

    Offline ERR99

    • ****
    • 339
  • Publish
    Re: S90 Porting Thread
    « Reply #298 on: 25 / April / 2010, 16:15:37 »
    Here is the latest build (V5) for 100c with all changes, please give it a try. ;)


  • Publish
    Re: S90 Porting Thread
    « Reply #299 on: 26 / April / 2010, 02:33:13 »
    Just wondering, V5, why did this affect 100c only and not the other firmware revisions?

     

    Related Topics