Flashhack - New LT1 flash tool

**NomakeWan** · 05-14-2020

Sure thing. I've attached the before (read_test) and after (read_test_write) BINs to this post.

I'm gonna make a shot in the dark and say it's the E-SIDE comms patch. I was never actually interested in that particular patch for my purposes but it's installed as part of the EEHack package, so.

Thanks for the assistance!

**kur4o** · 05-14-2020

The same thing happen to me, it is the FFs that are filled at the end of the eside. No need to worry I make sure that the minirom patch is compatible with all the other patches that are floating around. It is not compatible only with eeb eside revision bins.

**steveo** · 05-14-2020

i'll work on this tonight, thanks for the example bin. someone else reported this but never sent me their bin

**WASyL** · 05-14-2020

don't know if this has been mentioned but is it possible to add Flashhack as additional folder in EEhack program and change in EEhack so that Flash buton will just run Flashhack form sub-folder ?

bes regards

**steveo** · 05-15-2020

honestly, there would be hours of my time spent to just save you the few seconds it takes for you to close eehack and open flashhack.
logging and flashing are rarely something you would need to access from a unified interface for any real purpose

**steveo** · 05-15-2020

another problem is flashhack is under active development and eehack isnt
and flashhack will handle more than the lt1
thats why bundling them makes zero sense

**steveo** · 05-15-2020

Originally Posted by NomakeWan

Sure thing. I've attached the before (read_test) and after (read_test_write) BINs to this post.

I'm gonna make a shot in the dark and say it's the E-SIDE comms patch. I was never actually interested in that particular patch for my purposes but it's installed as part of the EEHack package, so.

Thanks for the assistance!

ok i've had a quick review and i agree that it's totally safe, if you know your bin hasn't been customized by any crazy patches that we don't know about, that you can just unset the 'verify patch regions against reference' parameter. that'll allow the thing to install.

the reason i do a strict compare by default is i'm fearful that someone else will try to upload a bin that has been customized in an unknown way, and our 'recovery' patch will somehow cause that bin to be unbootable or not enter programming mode. for that purpose it compares the comms code against a stock f-body bin.

i'll work on a workaround that allows it to work as designed while still protecting against such things. i thought for sure i had checked against eehack's patches but i guess thinking back, i never got around to doing that properly.....

by the way the new EEX xdf does have those eehack patches in it, so if you want speed logging or whatever in eehack in the future, that's how you get it.

**NomakeWan** · 05-15-2020

Originally Posted by steveo

ok i've had a quick review and i agree that it's totally safe, if you know your bin hasn't been customized by any crazy patches that we don't know about, that you can just unset the 'verify patch regions against reference' parameter. that'll allow the thing to install.

the reason i do a strict compare by default is i'm fearful that someone else will try to upload a bin that has been customized in an unknown way, and our 'recovery' patch will somehow cause that bin to be unbootable or not enter programming mode. for that purpose it compares the comms code against a stock f-body bin.

i'll work on a workaround that allows it to work as designed while still protecting against such things. i thought for sure i had checked against eehack's patches but i guess thinking back, i never got around to doing that properly.....

by the way the new EEX xdf does have those eehack patches in it, so if you want speed logging or whatever in eehack in the future, that's how you get it.

Oh, thanks for the EEX! I forgot it got updated to 4.0. Grabbed that and used it to patch my '94 for flash testing later. I did notice though that there's no "remove patch" in EEX for the EEHack patches. Intentional or oversight?

I'll go ahead and use that workaround for now and test flashing on both cars again over the weekend and let you know how it goes. Thanks!

**steveo** · 05-15-2020

Originally Posted by NomakeWan

Intentional or oversight?

can you think of a reason you'd want to remove them? ... i can't

**NomakeWan** · 05-15-2020

I mean for me personally? No not really. Just I'm used to being able to revert stuff. :P

**steveo** · 05-15-2020

if someone wanted to take the time to fix that, i'll put it in. i still haven't copied over the eside comms patch yet either. might be nice to get some help with that

**steveo** · 05-16-2020

new version should solve that eside patch issue, maybe get V6 read working, probably compile for linux. you know where to get it. no warranty

**NomakeWan** · 05-16-2020

Hilariously enough spotted it while looking for some stuff on your website and grabbed it.

I've got the "Remove Patch" functionality for the EEHack stuff done, and am working on implementing the same for kur4o's E-Side Comms stuff. I took a break for dinner but as soon as I'm done eating I should be able to have it ready in an hour or so.

**steveo** · 05-16-2020

cool, thanks for pitching in with that. im stretched a bit thin right now so EEX isn't really on my radar but i'll trust any changes you've made and post 'em on my site.

**NomakeWan** · 05-16-2020

All done. Turns out you had in fact ported over his E-Side comms stuff; you just accidentally placed an incomplete version under "Miscellaneous" that only included the MODE2/MODE3 message, while the full E-Side patch (including the MODE2/MODE3 message) was listed under Experimental. I have removed the erroneous entry under Miscellaneous, and added the base data for the EEHack patches so that they are removable. Just in case, I dunno, some Corvette owner wants to datalog oil temperatures while racing or something.