Hi Andrzej,
[...]
>> > > If my assumption is correct, then what would it take to split off
>> > > protocol part and make it independent of the actual driver
>> interface?
>> >
>> > I guess that in the situation given it would be of little use.
>>
>> What do you think would be of little use?
>>
Dear Wolfgang Denk,
Please see my comments inline.
> >
> > DFU is part of USB; an extension to be precise, but an extension
> bound
> > so tightly to the design and philosophy of USB that it is rather
> > inconceivable to separate the two.
>
> Could you please be so kind and explain which exact
Dear Stefan Schmidt,
In message <2006170219.GB20104@excalibur.local> you wrote:
>
> > Could you please be so kind and explain which exact issues you see for
> > such a separation?
>
> As Andrzej pointed out the DFU spec is written by the USB forum and
> one can see that there target are USB
Dear Stefan Schmidt,
In message <2006163605.GA20104@excalibur.local> you wrote:
>
> > > usbtty interface as usb gadget as well as the runtime descripto for
> > > DFU. With dfu-util it was possible to iniate the DFU download or
> > > upload procedure while being in the mode. Another option wou
Hello.
On Sat, 2011-11-05 at 16:33, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> In message <000601cc9abe$4f544bd0$edfce370$%p...@samsung.com> you wrote:
> >
> > > > http://www.usb.org/developers/devclass_docs/DFU_1.1.pdf
> >
> > DFU is part of USB; an extension to be precise, but an extension bound
> > so tightly to
Hello.
On Sat, 2011-11-05 at 16:31, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> In message <2002200717.GP17069@excalibur.local> you wrote:
> >
> > While I think a dfu command is usefull I don't like the need to
> > execute it before any DFU interaction can happen. That may be an
> > option during development but f
Dear Stefan Schmidt,
In message <2002200717.GP17069@excalibur.local> you wrote:
>
> While I think a dfu command is usefull I don't like the need to
> execute it before any DFU interaction can happen. That may be an
> option during development but for field upgrades or receovery it is
> not.
Y
Dear Andrzej Pietrasiewicz,
In message <000601cc9abe$4f544bd0$edfce370$%p...@samsung.com> you wrote:
>
> > > http://www.usb.org/developers/devclass_docs/DFU_1.1.pdf
>
> DFU is part of USB; an extension to be precise, but an extension bound
> so tightly to the design and philosophy of USB that it
Hello,
On Thursday, November 03, 2011 3:01 PM Stefan Schmidt wrote:
>
> o I will send out my not ready for mainline patch to give you and
> others an impression how it is tackled in my patch.
>
> o I like your split between dfu and flashing and also the addition of
> the dfu command. Could
Dear Wolfgang Denk,
Please see my comments inline.
On Thursday, November 03, 2011 7:14 PM Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> >
> > http://www.usb.org/developers/devclass_docs/DFU_1.1.pdf
> ...
DFU is part of USB; an extension to be precise, but an extension bound
so tightly to the design and philosophy of
Dear Andrzej Pietrasiewicz,
In message <1320228007-8947-1-git-send-email-andrze...@samsung.com> you wrote:
>
> Device Firmware Upgrade (DFU) is an extension to the USB specification.
> As of the time of this writing it is documented at
>
> http://www.usb.org/developers/devclass_docs/DFU_1.1.pdf
.
Hello.
On Thu, 2011-11-03 at 11:33, Andrzej Pietrasiewicz wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 02, 2011 9:07 PM Stefan Schmidt wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 11:00, Andrzej Pietrasiewicz wrote:
> >
> > > diff --git a/common/Makefile b/common/Makefile
> > > index ae795e0..de926d9 100644
> > > --- a/c
Hello Stefan,
On Thursday, November 03, 2011 2:32 PM Stefan Schmidt wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry about that. I forgot to mention the reference. It is
> > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/122080
> > >
> > Sorry again. I meant http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/11122079
>
> Hmm, applied this one but t
Hello.
On Thu, 2011-11-03 at 09:44, Andrzej Pietrasiewicz wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 02, 2011 8:30 PM Stefan Schmidt writes:
> >
> > Agreed. The eMMC flashing with files on FAT is nothing goni specific.
> > Others should be able to use this as well. I see three different parts
> > here that
Hello.
On Thu, 2011-11-03 at 09:12, Andrzej Pietrasiewicz wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 02, 2011 3:29 PM Stefan Shmidt wrote:
> >
> > Have you fully implemented 1.1? With the detahc logic inside the
> > device implementation?
>
> As you noticed in another post, the state machine is reused.
Ye
Hello.
On Thu, 2011-11-03 at 13:47, Andrzej Pietrasiewicz wrote:
> On Thursday, November 03, 2011 11:33 AM Andrzej Pietrasiewicz wrote:
>
> > Sorry about that. I forgot to mention the reference. It is
> > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/122080
> >
> Sorry again. I meant http://patchwork.ozlabs
On Thursday, November 03, 2011 11:33 AM Andrzej Pietrasiewicz wrote:
> >
> Sorry about that. I forgot to mention the reference. It is
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/122080
>
Sorry again. I meant http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/122079
Andrzej
_
Hello Stefan,
Thank you for your review. Please see comments inline.
On Wednesday, November 02, 2011 9:07 PM Stefan Schmidt wrote:
>
> First, and only high level, review for the DFU part.
>
> Against which u-boot tree/branch/version is this patch? I tried to
> apply it against HEAD and it fail
Hello Stefan,
On Wednesday, November 02, 2011 8:30 PM Stefan Schmidt writes:
>
> Agreed. The eMMC flashing with files on FAT is nothing goni specific.
> Others should be able to use this as well. I see three different parts
> here that can be separated:
I agree. Since there is interest in DFU i
Hello Mike,
Thank you for your review. Please see my comments inline.
On Wednesday, November 02, 2011 4:16 PM Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >
> > Dear All,
> >
> > This is Device Firmware Upgrade (DFU) implementation which supports
> > data upload and download function to devices which are equipped wi
Hello Stefan,
On Wednesday, November 02, 2011 3:29 PM Stefan Shmidt wrote:
>
> Have you fully implemented 1.1? With the detahc logic inside the
> device implementation?
As you noticed in another post, the state machine is reused.
> Just curious. What version of dfu-util your are using for your
Hello.
@Remy: One question I have for you is if the DFU implementation should
be based on the re-written gadget layer from samsung or based on the
current one?
First, and only high level, review for the DFU part.
Against which u-boot tree/branch/version is this patch? I tried to
apply it against
Hello.
On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 11:16, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 November 2011 06:00:07 Andrzej Pietrasiewicz wrote:
>
> are you working with the elinux.org guys ?
> http://elinux.org/Merge_DFU_support_into_mainline_U-Boot
That would be me. As I stated in my other mail I was sur
On Wednesday 02 November 2011 06:00:07 Andrzej Pietrasiewicz wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Andrzej Pietrasiewicz
> Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park
> ---
>
> Dear All,
>
> This is Device Firmware Upgrade (DFU) implementation which supports data
> upload and download function to devices which are equipped
Hello.
This really comes as surprise to me as I'm working on exactly the same
at the moment. I just realised that I only mentioned it here inside the
fastboot patches thread.
I started from the old patches Harald Welte wrote for u-boot during
his work for OpenMoko. I worked with him during this t
25 matches
Mail list logo
