Dear Lukasz,
In message 20140515154334.626923b4@amdc2363 you wrote:
This reinforces my speculation that you are actually addressing the wrong problem. Instead of adding new code and environment variables and making the system even more complex, we should just leave everything as is,
During working on this patch I've replaced the crc32() method with the call to hash_method(), which IMHO is welcome.
Yes, indeed this is highly welcome. Thanks a lot for that!
I also don't personally like the crc32, hence I like the choice which this patch gives me to use other algorithm (for which I've got HW support on my platform - e.g. MD5).
Well, is this really useful? dfu-utils provides only CRC caculation, so where would you get the reference value for any other checksum metod from?
and you should try to find out why the CRC calculation is so low for you. Checking if caches are enabled is probably among the things that should be done first.
L1 is enabled. L2 has been disabled on purpose (power consumption reduction).
This certainly contributes to slow code execution.
Please note that the last revision of DFU is from 2004. I've contacted Greg KH (one of the original authors) and he replied that no new attempt to revise the standard was made.
This may just mean that users were just happy with the current situation. It's definitely better than if changed had been proposed but rejected.
The best however, would be to revise the standard to include such functionality to it. In the same time I'm fully aware that this is very unlikely to happen.
Why do you think it is unlikely? Of course, it would require that someone comes up with such a proposal in the first place. But you sound as if you were certain a proposal had no chance for being considered. I may be naive, but should we not at least try before giving up?
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk