-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 67
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
dfu-util: Invalid DFU suffix signature #681
Comments
The suffix is this portion here: Lines 117 to 122 in dd9d68d
Which, according to this datasheet: http://rc.fdr.hu/UM0391.pdf ● The bcdDevice field gives the firmware version contained in the file, or 0xFFFF if ignored. And to meet the conditions for the CRC: Lines 125 to 130 in dd9d68d
This all looks right, insofar as there isn't much to get wrong. Maybe - contrary to the comments at the top of the DFU tool - the suffix should be included in the file length: Line 55 in dd9d68d
Edit: "DFU File Format" PDF attached here for posterity: DFU-File-Format-UM0391.pdf |
P.S. What's your DFU Util version and flash command? On Ubuntu I see a different flavour of wrong:
IE: The DFU file has 0000 as the Product ID so it will refuse to flash. |
Okay I found the problem. I typed |
0000 is probably because of this: https://github.com/32blit/32blit-sdk/blob/master/tools/dfu#L190 |
Over in the new DFU tool the default is still 0 for product ID: https://github.com/32blit/32blit-tools/blob/master/src/ttblit/core/dfu.py#L121 |
That's definitely an oversight, should be |
When flashing the latest firmware on linux I get this warning message:
I am not sure what this means but we should look into it to avoid it breaking at some point in the future.
I suspect it means there is some invalid header on the firmware.dfu.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: