Skip to content
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

more reliable with sector retry, ulx3s boad, other small improvements #16

Closed
wants to merge 90 commits into from

Conversation

emard
Copy link

@emard emard commented Jul 28, 2018

joined erase, program_sectors and verify into a single function.
--no-boot option
fixed verilog syntax error about ",)"
reset of the LED fade state
initialization scripts moved to ulx3s board support

Sector retry scheme improves stability but in my worst-case setup
ISSI FLASH is used and board plugged in USB port where are many other
USB root-hubbed devices, then it is on the edge of useability. Final verify sometimes fails,
sometimes python exits with errors
File "build/bdist.linux-x86_64/egg/tinyprog/init.py", line 286, in wait_while_busy
TypeError: ord() expected a character, but string of length 0 found
or sometimes progress just stops. USB situation is this:
Bus 001 Device 006: ID 0bda:0129 Realtek Semiconductor Corp. RTS5129 Card Reader Controller
Bus 001 Device 005: ID 0a5c:21d7 Broadcom Corp. BCM43142 Bluetooth 4.0
Bus 001 Device 004: ID 1bcf:2b8b Sunplus Innovation Technology Inc.
Bus 001 Device 059: ID 046d:c03e Logitech, Inc. Premium Optical Wheel Mouse (M-BT58)
Bus 001 Device 090: ID 1d50:6130 OpenMoko, Inc. <-- tinyfpga
Bus 001 Device 002: ID 8087:8001 Intel Corp.
Bus 001 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0002 Linux Foundation 2.0 root hub

If the same is plugged to USB port where tinybootloader is the only root-hubbed device
Bus 002 Device 065: ID 1d50:6130 OpenMoko, Inc <-- tinyfpga.
Bus 002 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0002 Linux Foundation 2.0 root hub
then it works reliable, I haven't got any failure with sector retry.

emard added 30 commits July 28, 2018 10:39
although I'm not 100% shure is continue really done correctly
@mithro
Copy link
Collaborator

mithro commented Jul 6, 2019

I'm assuming that #54 replaces the work done in this pull request.

@mithro mithro closed this Jul 6, 2019
@ewenmcneill
Copy link
Contributor

ewenmcneill commented Jul 6, 2019

I'm assuming that #54 replaces the work done in this pull request.

[Reply rewritten 2019-07-07 10:50, after actually clicking through to other PR :-) I was confused with #52 which just got merged....]

There were two main changes in this pull request: (a) retry sector writes that fail (9b71b91 mostly), and (b) add an entire another platform (ulx3s, most of the rest of the commits).

The latter is reimplemented in #54.

I think we probably do want to rescue the "retry sector write" idea from 9b71b91 and maybe reimplement it in the latest code, which I see is now #55. (IIRC to much has changed since the PR to just cherry pick it.)

Ewen

@mithro
Copy link
Collaborator

mithro commented Jul 6, 2019

Logged #55 about adding write retry logic.

@ewenmcneill
Copy link
Contributor

Logged #55 about adding write retry logic.

Thanks. I've edited my previous reply (#16 (comment)), now that I've found the actual #54 which is Trammel's PR for the code I'd previously only seen via Twitter.

Ewen

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants