compatible firmware (CHDK) versions of the same hardware - page 2 - General Discussion and Assistance - CHDK Forum supplierdeeply
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

compatible firmware (CHDK) versions of the same hardware

  • 23 Replies
  • 7279 Views
*

Offline PhyrePhoX

  • *****
  • 2254
  • make RAW not WAR
    • PhyreWorX
Re: compatible firmware (CHDK) versions of the same hardware
« Reply #10 on: 29 / August / 2008, 09:09:21 »
Advertisements
well, this wouldnt be a problem, would it?
Logged
*

Offline ewavr

  • ****
  • 1057
  • A710IS
Re: compatible firmware (CHDK) versions of the same hardware
« Reply #11 on: 29 / August / 2008, 09:37:21 »
Quote from: whim on 29 / August / 2008, 08:39:19
Played around a bit cloning  101a out of 101b for ixus70 with your method, but this caused
trouble with 'Makefile' and 'makefile.inc' - even after adapting the include syntax.
Ended up copying them to get it to work

Makefile:
Code: [Select]
topdir=../../../../
include $(topdir)platform/$(PLATFORM)/sub/101b/Makefile

makefile.inc:
Code: [Select]
include $(topdir)platform/$(PLATFORM)/sub/101b/makefile.inc

This works on juciphox build. But stubs_auto.S not generated  :(
Logged
*

Offline whim

  • ******
  • 2013
  • A495/590/620/630 ixus70/115/220/230/300/870 S95
Re: compatible firmware (CHDK) versions of the same hardware
« Reply #12 on: 29 / August / 2008, 09:58:24 »
Quote from: PhyrePhoX on 29 / August / 2008, 09:09:21
well, this wouldnt be a problem, would it?

Agreed - it's only a small price to pay.

wim

edit2: removed non-working 'solution'  :D

           
« Last Edit: 29 / August / 2008, 11:00:03 by whim »
Logged
*

Offline PhyrePhoX

  • *****
  • 2254
  • make RAW not WAR
    • PhyreWorX
Re: compatible firmware (CHDK) versions of the same hardware
« Reply #13 on: 29 / August / 2008, 14:00:15 »
ok, i gather that ewavrs solution isnt working? or is it?
the renaming of the subdir is DEFINITLY working and does not generate extra workload, neither in compilation nor in bandwidth (from the autobuild server). the only downside is the cosmetical aspect.
if we however include a "copy xyz101a.bin xyz101b" in the makefile, we would have a solution. right?
Logged
*

Offline whim

  • ******
  • 2013
  • A495/590/620/630 ixus70/115/220/230/300/870 S95
Re: compatible firmware (CHDK) versions of the same hardware
« Reply #14 on: 29 / August / 2008, 16:47:19 »
Not sure how you plan to do this in the Makefile, but if it can be done there
I agree it is the best solution.

see ya,

wim
Logged
*

Offline PhyrePhoX

  • *****
  • 2254
  • make RAW not WAR
    • PhyreWorX
Re: compatible firmware (CHDK) versions of the same hardware
« Reply #15 on: 30 / August / 2008, 07:46:39 »
hm, didnt find a way to do it in the top makefile, but then again i am no makefile artist.
doing it in the makefile would also only benefit the autobuild - there would be an additional download for each "duplicate" firmware.
but for example the chdk shell will still only showcase ONE firmware, and not the "duplicate" ones. so people with these firmwares wont have a clue how to compile for their cams. of course they can read the wiki, but thats exactly what i want to avoid here - keeping things simple is my motto.
if i renamed the sub dirs to 100b100c instead 100b_100c would at least keep hackis autobuild layout clean. this is ugly though. or maybe 100bc? hm.
thanks for all your efforts put into this already - this is a really small issue, but i really wanna do it :)
Logged
*

Offline whim

  • ******
  • 2013
  • A495/590/620/630 ixus70/115/220/230/300/870 S95
Re: compatible firmware (CHDK) versions of the same hardware
« Reply #16 on: 30 / August / 2008, 08:49:49 »
Hi Phox !

If you meant me when mentioning efforts - I rather think it's you who puts them in  :D
Don't know about Hacki, but I would favour the '100bc'  approach, then I can just scale up the
firware checkboxes a bit, and it won't look that ugly - unless Canon forces a '100abcdefgh' variant  :haha
In case the '100b_100c' gets most votes, i'll probably split them up and present two firm's in the
user interface.
In short, I can live with either  ;)

later,

wim



« Last Edit: 30 / August / 2008, 08:58:18 by whim »
Logged
*

Offline fe50

  • ******
  • 3105
  • IXUS50 & 860, SX10 Star WARs-Star RAWs
    • fe50
Re: compatible firmware (CHDK) versions of the same hardware
« Reply #17 on: 31 / August / 2008, 06:33:54 »
IMHO duplicating the platform trees is not wise, could bring confusion and/or difficulties in the future, e.g. everytime after editing the "original" sources the files must be copied - forgotten once & we'll have 2 "different" versions...after some time we would loose the overview...

...on bug reports we have to check always whether the reported fw version is such a "dummy" or not, otherwise we work on the "dummy"...

IMHO the wikia list "Supported Cameras" with the existing hints like "(1.00d with CHDK version for 1.00e)" should be enough - if anybody don't find his/her fw version on the download page, he/she looks to the wikia and will find the answer there...
Logged
*

Offline whim

  • ******
  • 2013
  • A495/590/620/630 ixus70/115/220/230/300/870 S95
Re: compatible firmware (CHDK) versions of the same hardware
« Reply #18 on: 31 / August / 2008, 07:17:31 »
@fe50

Quote
duplicating the platform trees is not wise

i think we've all agreed on that already - it's now just a question how this is gonna
look like for the compiler command line (and the dir in platform/xx/sub),  i.e.
is it gonna be

PLATFORMSUB=100b_100c
or
PLATFORMSUB=100bc
or even
PLATFORMSUB=100b,c
or ...

wim
Logged
*

Offline fudgey

  • *****
  • 1705
  • a570is
Re: compatible firmware (CHDK) versions of the same hardware
« Reply #19 on: 31 / August / 2008, 08:13:50 »
IMO the platform/sub/* names should not be changed, since this causes confusion with placing firmware dumps. I've only checked diffs for disassemblies of two of these cross-compatible dumps, those two were indeed different. Of course, it was only date and version number strings that were different, but how's one to know if the dumps aren't in a standard location to be found for review?
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
« previous next »
 

Related Topics