[dfu-util] New dfu-suffix manipulation tool

Stefan Schmidt stefan at datenfreihafen.org
Thu Mar 1 17:20:39 CET 2012


On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 17:09, Patryk Benderz wrote:
> > Why should they be in a define? The compiler detects if the variables
> > are constant and optimizes this case anyway.
> I take that argument. I was not aware that present compilers do such
> job. It was long ago (20 years) when was interested how compilers work,
> and it was Pascal compilers at the beginning.


> > Other tools have been able to decode a suffix I added with this code.
> ...well, since you say so, I have no more concern.

I only have access to a limited set of tools and firmware images.
(dfutool from the bluez project, the dfu suffix reference handling
code from the spec and some firmware image I found on the net claiming
to have a valid DFU suffix and working with with both test tools)

If anyone has access to more DFU tools, perhaps under windows, and or
images that are known to have a correct suffix I would be glad to hear
test results.

> > Maybe I'm biased due to some kernel work here but in my opinion it
> > looks cleaner and is easier to understand instead of repeating the
> > failure code all the time.
> I understand. Probably compiler also takes care of that, right?

Well, haven't thought about that. Just got used to goto for failure
handling in init and I'm happy with it for this one use case. :)

Stefan Schmidt

More information about the devel mailing list