From: M.Emrah O. <ozk...@gm...> - 2013-12-28 12:00:39
|
Hello, I recently learnt about sigrok project and absolutely fell in love with it. It's like a dream to have this much of decoders with an open source software. Thanks a lot for your efforts. Sadly, I bought my Sysclk LWLA1016 before learning about sigrok and found out that it's not supported yet. (it's "planned") I know it is not cool to ask about ETAs for voluntary work but would you be able to provide some timeframe (like a month, 6 months, a year etc) when this hardware might be supported. Or am I better of buying something already supported (like Open Workbench Logic Sniffer)? I would really like to avoid paying for a 2nd logic analyzer if I can though. Thank you very much in advance. Regards, Emrah. |
From: Daniel E. <dan...@gm...> - 2013-12-30 08:10:50
|
Hi, On Sa, 2013-12-28 at 14:00 +0200, M.Emrah OZKAYA wrote: > Sadly, I bought my Sysclk LWLA1016 before learning about sigrok and > found out that it's not supported yet. (it's "planned") I know it is > not cool to ask about ETAs for voluntary work but would you be able to > provide some timeframe (like a month, 6 months, a year etc) when this > hardware might be supported. I guess you're lucky, I'm reverse-engineering the SysClk LWLA1034 protocol as we speak. :) I'm quite confident we'll get to supporting it within less than 6 months -- hopefully earlier. Can't make any promises about the LWLA1016, but with some (reasonable) luck the protocols will be similar. Cheers, --Daniel |
From: M.Emrah O. <ozk...@gm...> - 2013-12-30 11:12:37
|
That's fantastic news, guess Santa came early this year :) Thank you very much. Regards, Emrah. On 30.12.2013 10:10, Daniel Elstner wrote: > Hi, > > On Sa, 2013-12-28 at 14:00 +0200, M.Emrah OZKAYA wrote: > >> Sadly, I bought my Sysclk LWLA1016 before learning about sigrok and >> found out that it's not supported yet. (it's "planned") I know it is >> not cool to ask about ETAs for voluntary work but would you be able to >> provide some timeframe (like a month, 6 months, a year etc) when this >> hardware might be supported. > I guess you're lucky, I'm reverse-engineering the SysClk LWLA1034 > protocol as we speak. :) I'm quite confident we'll get to supporting it > within less than 6 months -- hopefully earlier. > > Can't make any promises about the LWLA1016, but with some (reasonable) > luck the protocols will be similar. > > Cheers, > --Daniel > > > > |
From: Daniel E. <dan...@gm...> - 2014-01-10 19:58:45
|
Hi again, On Mo, 2013-12-30 at 13:12 +0200, M.Emrah OZKAYA wrote: > That's fantastic news, guess Santa came early this year :) Thank you > very much. I'm making good progress on the LWLA1034 driver, and hope to have it ready for testing soon. However, I do not own an LWLA1016 myself. If you want to help, it would be greatly appreciated if you could capture logs of the USB traffic generated by the vendor software when communicating with the LWLA1016. How to do that in a nutshell: Setup: - get a VM (such as VirtualBox) running with USB 2.0 support - forward the LWLA1016 USB device to the Windows guest in the VM - install and run the LWLA1016 software Monitoring: - install Wireshark - modprobe usbmon - chmod a+r /dev/usbmon? - run wireshark - start capture on the usbmon<bus number> where your device is on - make sure you have no other noisy devices talking on that bus - start vendor software inside Windows VM - change some settings, capture samples, etc - quit the vendor software - stop the capture in Wireshark - save file with pcapng format (the default) and gzip compression If you don't have the necessary resources at hand, no big deal, we will get to support the device at some point. But perhaps you could help to speed up the process. :) Cheers, --Daniel |
From: Peter S. <pe...@st...> - 2014-01-25 20:55:30
|
Daniel Elstner wrote: > we have indeed received permission to redistribute the LWLA firmware. > The bitstream files for the LWLA1034 are now part of the sigrok-firmware > package. Sweet. Does the package also include documentation of the permission? //Peter |
From: Daniel E. <dan...@gm...> - 2014-01-25 21:21:52
|
Hi, On Sa, 2014-01-25 at 21:55 +0100, Peter Stuge wrote: > Sweet. Does the package also include documentation of the permission? of course: http://sigrok.org/gitweb/?p=sigrok-firmware.git;a=blob;f=sysclk-lwla/LICENSE.LWLA;hb=HEAD Cheers, --Daniel |
From: Daniel E. <dan...@gm...> - 2014-01-14 19:49:00
|
Hi, On Di, 2014-01-14 at 10:17 +0200, M.Emrah OZKAYA wrote: > Hello, I captured my first data under Windows. I used wireshark and > usbpcap program and the output file I'm sending (*.pcap) can be opened > under Wireshark. Cool, thanks for your contribution! I haven't looked at it yet, but will do so now. Also, note that the SysClk LWLA1034 just changed status to "supported". :) Cheers, --Daniel |
From: Daniel E. <dan...@gm...> - 2014-01-17 00:18:20
|
Hi, On Do, 2014-01-16 at 11:53 +0200, M.Emrah OZKAYA wrote: > Hello, have you had any chance to look at the data I sent? Is it > useful, do you need anything else? Thanks. OK, I have had a look now. I have begun to document what I was able to glean from the USB captures you and Uwe Hermann (who happens to own an LWLA1016, too) provided: http://sigrok.org/wiki/Sysclk_LWLA1016/Protocol So far, so good -- the basics of the protocol are the same as for the LWLA1034. However, the device operations like capture setup, status polling and reading from memory are performed in a different (more basic) manner. The LWLA1034 has dedicated commands for these, which the LWLA1016 apparently lacks. I fear it will be somewhat tedious to exchange protocol dumps by mail which exercise all of the device functionality, and relate register values to settings and displayed results in the vendor UI with sufficient confidence. With the LWLA1034, I sometimes had to run several live sessions in a row to test a single hypothesis about some value the protocol. Perhaps Uwe will be able to help. Regards, --Daniel |
From: Daniel E. <dan...@gm...> - 2014-01-18 18:40:39
|
Hi again, On Fr, 2014-01-17 at 01:18 +0100, Daniel Elstner wrote: > I fear it will be somewhat tedious to exchange protocol dumps by mail > which exercise all of the device functionality, [...] I'm playing with the idea of ordering an LWLA1016 for myself, so I can implement support for it. Right now I'm somewhat busy though, so it may take a week or two before I get around to it. Of course, if someone on this list got a spare LWLA1016 for lending, that would be find with me, too. :) By the way, I've contacted SysClk to inquire whether they would be willing to allow us to redistribute their FPGA bitstreams. So far I haven't received any reply. There is a tool in sigrok-util which extracts the firmware from the vendor software's installer executable, but it would be even nicer for users if the bitstreams were included with sigrok. Cheers, --Daniel |
From: Daniel E. <dan...@gm...> - 2014-03-28 19:25:06
|
Hi, On Sat, 2014-01-18 at 19:40 +0100, Daniel Elstner wrote: > I'm playing with the idea of ordering an LWLA1016 for myself, so I can > implement support for it. Right now I'm somewhat busy though, so it may > take a week or two before I get around to it. after some bad luck with resellers, the developer of the LWLA series has kindly offered to send me an LWLA1016 for free. It will take a while to arrive and even more time for me to get around to working with it. I just wanted to let you know that things are still progressing, albeit slowly. :) Cheers, --Daniel |
From: Daniel E. <dan...@gm...> - 2014-01-22 22:49:03
|
Hi another time, On Sa, 2014-01-18 at 19:40 +0100, Daniel Elstner wrote: > By the way, I've contacted SysClk to inquire whether they would be > willing to allow us to redistribute their FPGA bitstreams. So far I > haven't received any reply. I'm in contact now with the developer of the LWLA series, and it looks like the sigrok project will soon receive permission to redistribute the firmware. Stay tuned. Cheers, --Daniel |
From: Daniel E. <dan...@gm...> - 2014-01-25 20:32:11
|
Hi, On Mi, 2014-01-22 at 23:48 +0100, Daniel Elstner wrote: > I'm in contact now with the developer of the LWLA series, and it looks > like the sigrok project will soon receive permission to redistribute the > firmware. we have indeed received permission to redistribute the LWLA firmware. The bitstream files for the LWLA1034 are now part of the sigrok-firmware package. SysCLK also expressed their intent to assist us in the development of the LWLA1016 driver. Cheers, --Daniel |
From: Daniel E. <dan...@gm...> - 2015-11-25 17:05:44
|
Hi, it's been a while -- indeed, nearly two years -- but as they say, good things come to those who wait. :) Support for the LWLA1016 in libsigrok's sysclk-lwla driver is finally there and ready for testing: https://github.com/danielkitta/libsigrok/tree/lwla1016 As of now, it is still necessary to extract the FPGA bitstreams from the Windows software using this tool from sigrok-util: http://sigrok.org/gitweb/?p=sigrok-util.git;a=blob;f=firmware/sysclk-lwla/sigrok-fwextract-sysclk-lwla1016;hb=HEAD I'm in contact with the manufacturer regarding the right to distribute the FPGA bitstreams. We'll likely receive permission soon. Cheers, --Daniel |