dfu-util: Support for DFU ST extensions (DfuSe)
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 :)
> > 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
> 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
More information about the devel