Implement DSO-2090 device #321
Replies: 14 comments 1 reply
-
It depends how complex the changes are. Please give me a rough estimation. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Ok - after 7 days it looks if it is not so important - I close here. Feel free to reopen it if you can provide more info. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Sorry I missed the previous response :( I had no time to look at it deeper. I just wanted to know if it will be ok for you, or you want keep strictly actual devices. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
no need to reopen :) it is not issue. Just there was no other way to contact you :) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
As I wrote previously I'm not able to support "virtual" devices, i.e. a device I have not in my hands. But if the impact on the existing files is not too big we can try, otherwise you should provide your own branch with e.g. synced snapshots for the main releases. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
How do I access this code change? I would very much like 2090 support but my own attempts have failed. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
There was no time to write it :( and probably will not be for longer time. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
@Ho-Ro Ive been running OpenHantek for years. Its the only Linux sw I have found to work properly. But the OH6022 interfaces seems much nicer and cleaner. The source from OH did not help me more than the legacy branch of OH6022. The problem Im seeing (in my modified OH6022 build) is that I get a "Connection failed" when selecting DSO-2090 in the initial "Select device" dialog. Any spontaneous hints from that description? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
You could try to start with |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Firmware hex is the one used by the legacy openhantek (although I dont know what to do with the *-loader.hex). Udev rule is already in place since im running legacy OH. But I tried replacing the udev rules with various those from github (OH and old OH6022). No diff. I dont think the firmware uploads. The "failed message" is immediate, no delay after choosing device (dso-2090 is only device in list). I will test the verbose argument, thanks for the tip! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Have a look at
EDIT: This is the output of the old OH (with DSO-6022BE) when started in terminal, it loads two FW files (the last three lines are unimportant):
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Can you simply skip the loader hex? Or are the firmware hexes used by OH6002 not the same as those used by OH? It seems the firmware hex is uploaded in my case. I can follow every SREC line in the debug printout. Then a reset is issued, then nothing. As if the firmware content was bad somehow. You say "my improved FW". Is OH6022 using custom FW for its supported devices? And this in practice includes the functionality the loader supplied? I will examine my logs, thanks! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I can imagine that if there's a two-stage loading (*loader.hex & *firmware.hex) both should be loaded, compare old and new. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Hi,
If I create a PR for the DSO-2090 device, will it be accepted? Or you want keep strictly only this 6022 device?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions