Liberated Calypso docs found

Michael Sokolov msokolov at ivan.Harhan.ORG
Tue Sep 27 21:30:18 CEST 2011

Paul Fertser <fercerpav at> wrote:

> What exactly do you want to change in it? Disabling RRLP? Having AT
> command intepreter sources wouldn't help it, also i'm not sure if the
> original firmware had that "functionality" implemented in the first
> place.

I have no way of knowing a priori whether I would want/need to change
anything at all.  For me it's a matter of having the source just for the
point of it.  Perhaps I just want to study it and understand how it
works, perhaps I won't need to modify it at all.  But being able to
rebuild the image from the source is the only way to prove that the
source is complete.  A piece that's missing altogether is worse than
having that piece in the form of an ARM ELF .o file.

> Having TI's
> blobs is not much different from having them all in a single firmware
> files.

Are you sure?  Have you seen those blobs, as you call them?  Without
having seen them, my a priori guess would be that it's a big pile of
little .o files in ARM ELF format.  In order to be linkable with other
modules, an ELF file has to be unstripped.  Even if TI's "blobs" were/
are in the form of a few big .o files (on even just one) rather than a
big pile of little ones, it still has to be unstripped ELF.  That means
symbol information: names of functions, names of variables, exactly
where one function ends and the next begins, etc.  Much better than a
fully linked binary with no ELF symbolic information whatsoever.

And if it's a big pile of little .o files (perhaps in a .a archive/
library) rather than one really big .o, that would be even better: one
could conceivably disassemble these .o's one by one, using module and
function names as a guide to where the more interesting bits are more
likely to reside...

Basically what I'm saying is that reasoning a priori, without having
seen the ware, I would not discount the possibilities.


More information about the community mailing list