LS1 Boost OS - Development

For discussion and distribution of custom code and hacks
User avatar
NSFW
Posts: 679
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 3:13 pm

Re: LS1 Boost OS - Development

Post by NSFW »

It just occurred to me that if we were to disable the code that copies data form RAM to the parameter blocks, and the code that updates RAM in the parameter blocks, we'd have a LOT of RAM available to use for whatever we want...

Finding the copy code probably would be easy if you search for the addresses of the parameter blocks... but finding the code that stores check-engine-light data in RAM might be hard. I wonder how many places there are that write to that area of RAM.
Please don't PM me with technical questions - start a thread instead, and send me a link to it. That way I can answer in public, and help other people who have the same question. Thanks!
bubba2533
Posts: 498
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 8:50 am
cars: 03 Chevy S10 Turbo V6

Re: LS1 Boost OS - Development

Post by bubba2533 »

I’m not sure if you will need to do that. The block of ram I’ve found is so large I can’t imagine anyone would need more. I may just try a bench test with your program so I can verify without my vehicle running.

If I’m wrong with this location, I haven’t found any other spaces in RAM that look promising so we may have to do exactly that.
LS1 Boost OS V3 Here. For feature suggestions post in here Development Thread. Support future development ->Patreon.
bubba2533
Posts: 498
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 8:50 am
cars: 03 Chevy S10 Turbo V6

Re: LS1 Boost OS - Development

Post by bubba2533 »

Ok, so I ran a couple bench tests and it has come back looking promising as well. If a couple people could do the test as well in a vehicle then it would add even more confidence.

It's over 2,000 bytes of unused RAM!!!! and I was only in need of 22 bytes for my Boost OS.

Thanks again NSFW for the awesome work!
LS1 Boost OS V3 Here. For feature suggestions post in here Development Thread. Support future development ->Patreon.
User avatar
NSFW
Posts: 679
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 3:13 pm

Re: LS1 Boost OS - Development

Post by NSFW »

So much room for activities. :)

Thanks for confirming that the RAM dump works!
Please don't PM me with technical questions - start a thread instead, and send me a link to it. That way I can answer in public, and help other people who have the same question. Thanks!
bubba2533
Posts: 498
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 8:50 am
cars: 03 Chevy S10 Turbo V6

Re: LS1 Boost OS - Development

Post by bubba2533 »

Ok, I believe I have everything ready to test with V3 of my OS. I’m going to do some bench testing first to verify that the new features are working as expected.

I really need to call it because I keep on looking at adding more features or changing my tooling to make my life easier.

But just to jot down some ideas that I was thinking of adding next was:
-Increase MAF table to 15,000 Hz
-Increase g/sec limit (currently 512 g/sec)
-MAF Disable Feature (Without the use of a DTC)

I am really not in need of any of these features, but they are something others could find useful. If anyone has other features that they would be interested in having please post them and I’ll see how feasible they are.
LS1 Boost OS V3 Here. For feature suggestions post in here Development Thread. Support future development ->Patreon.
bubba2533
Posts: 498
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 8:50 am
cars: 03 Chevy S10 Turbo V6

Re: LS1 Boost OS - Development

Post by bubba2533 »

Ok, so now getting to doing bench testing and its not going as expected.

Looks like there may need to be more work to get it working. I'm having issues with the checksums.

If I change the OS end address to leave the last sector for new calibration then the current TunerPro dll file is no longer valid. I'm guessing it's using hard coded values vs. actually looking at the sum ranges.

Even then I may have missed something in the OS because once I flashed the updated OS the PCM was unresponsive. More investigation to be done....
LS1 Boost OS V3 Here. For feature suggestions post in here Development Thread. Support future development ->Patreon.
kur4o
Posts: 948
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2016 9:20 pm

Re: LS1 Boost OS - Development

Post by kur4o »

I can help you with checksums.

First only this plugin can handle dynamic allocated checksum addresses. You may have to switch for it.
https://github.com/joukoy/gm-checksum-plugins

Checksum addresses that needs to change is at $510 stock is 00 0f ff fd, that is the end of OS checksum range. Checksum is stored at $500.
It will be good to leave the very last chip segment for extra cal space. That way you can erase the OS identifier at end of bin[last 2 bytes], and if anything bad happens while writing that last segment you can recover pcm.

To test checksum are correct and segment are configured good. You can use Universal Patcher.

Do you mind if we port the boost OS to universal patcher as a patch and make some definition for it. It will be almost semi automated.
bubba2533
Posts: 498
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 8:50 am
cars: 03 Chevy S10 Turbo V6

Re: LS1 Boost OS - Development

Post by bubba2533 »

Hmm, well I disabled the checksum range change and it's still causing a no run condition.

I think I need to check my code. I've already disassembled the code a number of times and found errors...time to go looking for more.
LS1 Boost OS V3 Here. For feature suggestions post in here Development Thread. Support future development ->Patreon.
bubba2533
Posts: 498
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 8:50 am
cars: 03 Chevy S10 Turbo V6

Re: LS1 Boost OS - Development

Post by bubba2533 »

Found an error, but I don't think it was big enough to cause this type of issue.

I may need to figure out how to step through the code in the BDM that I have.
LS1 Boost OS V3 Here. For feature suggestions post in here Development Thread. Support future development ->Patreon.
kur4o
Posts: 948
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2016 9:20 pm

Re: LS1 Boost OS - Development

Post by kur4o »

Wrong checksum create semi-bricked condition. Not sure you can recover pcm easily from that. Given the fact you managed to reflash, it is likely the code.
Cpu don`t like odd addressing. Keep everything even and you won`t chase tails.
Post Reply