Add support for PAKs targeting 64-bit devices #4
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Thanks! Looks good overall, I'd like to get a chance to test it first and I won't be able to do that right away. Please ping if I take too long. |
vmallet
approved these changes
Apr 12, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The tests I mentioned in #3 were to try and figure out the difference(s) between the RLN36 and the rest, and it looks like the bitness is indeed the answer. Based on this, I added a
is_64bitfunction to identify the different layout, the corresponding constants and made the required changes which should be completely backward compatible.I have ideas to make the code a little nicer but that would also break the backward compatibility.
Fixes #1.
Also, turns out #3 helped uncover a non-empty section for RLN36 firmwares.