dfu-util: Support for DFU ST extensions (DfuSe)

Stefan Schmidt stefan at datenfreihafen.org
Mon Oct 24 13:23:04 CEST 2011


On Mon, 2011-10-24 at 12:56, Tormod Volden wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Stefan Schmidt
> <stefan at datenfreihafen.org> wrote:
> > Hello.
> >
> > On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 13:29, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 21:52, Tormod Volden wrote:
> >> >
> >> > The code for supporting ST Microelectronics DFU extensions (DfuSe) is
> >> > now ready. It can be found in the dfuse-libusb-1.0 branch of
> >> > https://gitorious.org/~tormod/unofficial-clones/dfuse-dfu-util - I
> >> > recommend fetching it and viewing it with for instance "git instaweb"
> >> > instead of reading the commits on gitorious because they list the
> >> > commits out of commit order (I think they appear by author date and I
> >> > did some rebasing).
> >>
> >> Many many thanks for this. I will review this in the week after the
> >> 20th. I'm finishing my diploma thesis right now and barely have spare
> >> cycles to read mail. But be assured that this and your other patches
> >> are on my high priority list after the thesis drop off. :)
> >
> > Its done and I finally have time at hand again. :)
> Congratulations for having your thesis done :)

Thnaks :)

> > I'm going to review and test your patches the next days. I would be
> > grateful if you could point out any missing patches I may have missed.
> > What I have scheduled for review right now is the patch adding 1.1
> > features and the patchset for Dfuse support. Anything else I'm
> > missing?
> Right, there is the DfuSe support in the dfuse-libusb-1.0 branch
> (updated since), then there are three patches in master-patches
> branch:
>     main: Make descriptor helper functions more generic
>     dfu-util.1: --device option never needed hex prefix
>     main: Move DFU state transition blocks together

OK, all three are already in my local repo and I will test them later
today or tomorrow. They rae fine froma review point of view. Only
testing from my side is missing.

> As I wrote on the list, this last one above could need some testing. I
> do not know if there was a reason for this status check block to be
> placed after the descriptor retrieval and is necessary for some device
> or it is just the code that grew like that. IMO if some device need it
> this order, it needs to be documented so we do not carry cargo cult.
> Therefore I will suggest to go on and applying it if there is no
> problem with the devices that we can test, and then deal with any bug
> report if it comes along.

Thats fine with me.

> Then finally the DFU 1.1 patch which I haven't pushed yet but was
> posted on the ML.

I picked that one from the ml as well. Will be in the testing lot like
the others above.

For the DfuSe branch I need a bit more toime to review it and make my
mind up on the best approach for merging it. Hopefully still this week

Stefan Schmidt

More information about the devel mailing list