Andrey from rusEfi

[rusefi]

Hello everyone, I an Andrey - I am playing with DIY open source ECU, rusEfi - http://www.autoweek.com/article/20140424/CARNEWS02/140429923

I am here to find people who would be interested to participate :)

[steveo]

cool project

i'll help if i can

[EagleMark]

Well since it's a rival to MS... :jfj:

I've read some on your project.

[rusefi]

I would really appreciate some help :) There is the https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/312898525/rusefi-gpl-automotive-engine-control-unit-ecu-firm which is dragging its feet but more importantly I just need people to try/provide feedback and maybe write some code.

Anyway, let me start a thread in the 'other Efi' subforum

[Six_Shooter]

I'd be interested in testing. I also have experience programming C (part of the program I'm taking in college). I'm not as proficient as I would like to be. I just need more practice.

I do have one disagreement with the article though. Unless something has changed in the last couple months I was under the impression that MS IS open source, since you can download the firmware, make your own changes, modify the circuits to suit, and share with the rest of the community. How is that not open source? Closed source would be EFI systems like Haltec, F.A.S.T., Accel, Big Stuff 3, etc.

[rusefi]

I'd be interested in testing. I also have experience programming C...
That's exactly the kind of response I desperately need! Would you be willing to support https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/312898525/rusefi-gpl-automotive-engine-control-unit-ecu-firm
for the 'bare PCB' or 'assembled PCB' amount? This case you get a board to play with :)


I was under the impression that MS IS open source, since you can download the firmware, make your own changes, modify the circuits to suit, and share with the rest of the community.
MS1 & MS2 yes, you can view & change the firmware, and you can adjust the board but only while you stay within the license. You are not allowed to sell your version of the hardware - that's exactly where MS is proprietary, not free design.

MS3 firmware is plain closed-source, is not it?

[Six_Shooter]

I'll take a look at the Kickstarter.

There's an option missing that I (personally) would like, an un-assembled kit. ;) I have no issues with SMD soldering and sometime enjoy it. It's part of the career that I'm getting into. ;) I don't expect you to actually have that option...

AFAIK, the only thing that you need to do is pay a small royalty fee to Bowling a & Grippo, but once you do you can be "authorized" to sell it.

I'm pretty sure MS3 is still open source. I believe MS-Pro to be closed source though, probably has a lot to do with the ECU being a fully finished ECU with no (easy) way to make changes.

[rusefi]

There is a pretty accurate BOM @ http://rusefi.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=359 so you should get yourself a 99% kit in a couple of clicks. Not 100% kit because SD card module we use is only available on eBay, not from the major distributors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source says "free license". "Small royalty" is close, but not exactly the same. I am in no way an expert, so I absolutely could be wrong. What about MS itself, do they ever call themselves open source? :)

[3400tZ]

Geez, let me clarify the MS firmware open source thing for you guys :)

All MS1 extra/MS2 extra and MS3 (including MS3-pro) firmwares have the source available. The source of MS3 is usually lagging a few versions but still available. The developers keep repeating that it is not open source in the sense that you cannot just build your own hardware, install the firmware on it and sell the package for a profit. That's just common sense anyway, most of the work is in the firmware, not hardware and its with the hardware they make their money. You can however modify the firmware to run on MS hardware. Some people even distribute those modified firmwares such as gslender with his MS2 extra changes (some of those changes made it to the official firmware).

Personally, I have no problem modifying the firmware and keep the MS hardware but the code is so poorly written that it's pretty much impossible to modify unless you really want to get into it. That probably explain the low participation of outsiders. That would be my main reason for starting a project like rusEFI more than the fact that I cannot run their code on my own hardware and sell that.

[rusefi]

the code is so poorly written that it's pretty much impossible to modify unless you really want to get into it. That probably explain the low participation of outsiders. That would be my main reason for starting a project like rusEFI more than the fact that ...
We have to give it to MS - their code works :) Yes, it's limited and un-modifiable, but it does the job done.

Anyway, yes - the quality of code was my first priority when I've decided to start rusEfi. I believe that processors would evolve, we cannot afford to lock into any platform even if it looks great today - in three to five years it would be worthless.

Did you have a chance to check rusEfi code? http://rusefi.com/wiki/index.php?title=Development:Source_code_intro has all the key links. I would appreciate any comments.

[3400tZ]

Yep, that's the thing, it works great. That's what I'm running (MS3) and I have no problem.

Actually, I did check your project a bit already. I'm the one that was complaining about the fact that the code wasn't on github on your forum :P To be honest, not being on a "social coding" platform is pretty much a show stopper for me. I really think you would get more help if the code was setup in a way that allow easy participation of outsiders. I remember the SVN days when I was creating a branch from the trunk, it had to copy all the shit over to the new branch, that was taking like half an hour. Try that with GIT instead and you will see what I mean :) The forks on github, the pull requests, the possibility of commenting on pull requests, commits, etc is just the way to go IMO for such a project.

Either way, whatever you decide, you seems to be really open minded and wants to get stuff done so I think this project will go really far :)

[rusefi]

https://github.com/rusefi/rusefi

For now it's just a manual copy, I would need to remove some unneeded files.

[3400tZ]

Cool! Is there any way to do firmware development without (yet) buying the actual hardware ? Some sort of ECU simulator ?

[rusefi]

Some sort of ECU simulator ?
Great question! Yes, there is a rusefi_simulator.exe way. I've just added an extended version of the response to the FAQ @ http://rusefi.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=10&p=7948

[3400tZ]

"Thank you for the order you placed with Digi-Key."

Looks like I will have a stm32f4disovery board soon :P It was 29$ tho with the shipping to Canada.

I have experience with Java, quite a bit on Android and have done some project in C/C++. We will see if/how I can help.

I'm also participating in an Android app for MS that works with ini file so I assume if you use ini file that works with TunerStudio, the app might already work with rusEFI. Otherwise, I can always have a look and see what it would take to make it work, probably not much. App is here: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.msdroid

[rusefi]

I am a java dev by day :)
The .ini file is @ https://svn.code.sf.net/p/rusefi/code/trunk/firmware/tunerstudio/ - we are using F32 a lot, do you support it?

[3400tZ]

Pretty sure I don't, is that something that Phil added for you ? I don't think I've ever seen that for MS. What does it mean, my best guess would be a 32 bits float (4 bytes) ?

Btw, I got Sourcery CodeBench Lite for ARM EABI and Cygwin with make installed. I'm able to compile from the command line. I have Eclipse setup with the ARM plugin, now the issue I have is the following:

22:03:15 **** Incremental Build of configuration Default for project win32_functional_tests ****
make all
cygwin warning:
MS-DOS style path detected: C:\Users\Seb\Desktop\rusEFI\win32_functional_tests \
Preferred POSIX equivalent is: /cygdrive/c/Users/Seb/Desktop/rusEFI/win32_functional_tests/
CYGWIN environment variable option "nodosfilewarning" turns off this warning.
Consult the user's guide for more details about POSIX paths:
http://cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/using.html#using-pathnames
Compiling chcore.c
make: i686-pc-mingw32-gcc: Command not found
make: *** [build/obj/chcore.o] Error 127
rules.mk:118: recipe for target 'build/obj/chcore.o' failed

22:03:15 Build Finished (took 210ms)


Does that ring a bell to you ?

[rusefi]

F32 was added pretty recently, maybe for open5xx? yes 32bit float

Yes it does ring a bell - you need to add minigw gcc/g++ in Cygwin setup. Regular gcc there is a problem with semicolons and windows and its in the way of incremental build.

[3400tZ]

Cool, it compiles now! You might want to add "minigw gcc/g++" to the cygwin part here: http://rusefi.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=9 :)

Thanks man!

[3400tZ]

Hey Audrey,

Just did ticket #61 for ya: http://sourceforge.net/p/rusefi/tickets/61/

Replace PortLookupFrame.java with this: https://gist.github.com/sebgiroux/2ac4bc8d652b3cc108aa

I would have sent a pull request on github but I had to start from SVN because the git repo seems to be outdated a bit :(

[rusefi]

Just did ticket #61 for ya
Way to go!

I've just merged this into the SVN repo. I am on the road now, need to figure out the exact SF to GH migration once I am back home.