PCMHammer 2.0.0 Release

[AngelMarc]

98/99 Vortec "Black Box" (5-connector)

So 97 5 connector is just a no? Getting bus errors.

[AngelMarc]

My dumbass didn't have power plugged in to wall... but still.

[AngelMarc]

And sometimes

[13:28:00.336] Will save to C:\Users\marc\Downloads\PCMHammer_2.0.0_Portable\PCMHammer\PcmHammer\suburban.bin
[13:28:00.349] Using manually selected PCM type: BlackBox
[13:28:00.608] Read failed: System.InvalidOperationException: The BaseStream is only available when the port is open.
at System.IO.Ports.SerialPort.get_BaseStream()
at PcmHacking.StandardPort.<PcmHacking-IPort-Send>d__14.MoveNext() in D:\a\PcmHammer\PcmHammer\Apps\PcmLibraryWindowsApi\Ports\StandardPort.cs:line 274
--- End of stack trace from previous location where exception was thrown ---
at System.Runtime.CompilerServices.TaskAwaiter.ThrowForNonSuccess(Task task)
at System.Runtime.CompilerServices.TaskAwaiter.HandleNonSuccessAndDebuggerNotification(Task task)
at PcmHacking.ElmDeviceImplementation.<SendRequest>d__38.MoveNext() in D:\a\PcmHammer\PcmHammer\Apps\PcmLibrary\Devices\ElmDeviceImplementation.cs:line 158
--- End of stack trace from previous location where exception was thrown ---
at System.Runtime.CompilerServices.TaskAwaiter.ThrowForNonSuccess(Task task)
at System.Runtime.CompilerServices.TaskAwaiter.HandleNonSuccessAndDebuggerNotification(Task task)
at PcmHacking.ScanToolDeviceImplementation.<SendMessage>d__6.MoveNext() in D:\a\PcmHammer\PcmHammer\Apps\PcmLibrary\Devices\ScanToolDeviceImplementation.cs:line 276
--- End of stack trace from previous location where exception was thrown ---
at System.Runtime.CompilerServices.TaskAwaiter.ThrowForNonSuccess(Task task)
at System.Runtime.CompilerServices.TaskAwaiter.HandleNonSuccessAndDebuggerNotification(Task task)
at PcmHacking.ElmDevice.<SendMessage>d__7.MoveNext() in D:\a\PcmHammer\PcmHammer\Apps\PcmLibrary\Devices\ElmDevice.cs:line 189
--- End of stack trace from previous location where exception was thrown ---
at System.Runtime.CompilerServices.TaskAwaiter.ThrowForNonSuccess(Task task)
at System.Runtime.CompilerServices.TaskAwaiter.HandleNonSuccessAndDebuggerNotification(Task task)
at PcmHacking.Vehicle.<SuppressChatter>d__50.MoveNext() in D:\a\PcmHammer\PcmHammer\Apps\PcmLibrary\Vehicle.Kernel.cs:line 28
--- End of stack trace from previous location where exception was thrown ---
at System.Runtime.CompilerServices.TaskAwaiter.ThrowForNonSuccess(Task task)
at System.Runtime.CompilerServices.TaskAwaiter.HandleNonSuccessAndDebuggerNotification(Task task)
at System.Runtime.CompilerServices.TaskAwaiter.ValidateEnd(Task task)
at PcmHacking.ReadManager.<RunRead>d__16.MoveNext() in D:\a\PcmHammer\PcmHammer\Apps\PcmLibrary\ReadManager.cs:line 204
--- End of stack trace from previous location where exception was thrown ---
at System.Runtime.CompilerServices.TaskAwaiter.ThrowForNonSuccess(Task task)
at System.Runtime.CompilerServices.TaskAwaiter.HandleNonSuccessAndDebuggerNotification(Task task)
at PcmHacking.ReadManager.<Read>d__13.MoveNext() in D:\a\PcmHammer\PcmHammer\Apps\PcmLibrary\ReadManager.cs:line 50
--- End of stack trace from previous location where exception was thrown ---
at System.Runtime.CompilerServices.TaskAwaiter.ThrowForNonSuccess(Task task)
at System.Runtime.CompilerServices.TaskAwaiter.HandleNonSuccessAndDebuggerNotification(Task task)
at PcmHacking.MainForm.<readFullContents_BackgroundThread>d__62.MoveNext() in D:\a\PcmHammer\PcmHammer\Apps\UI\WindowsForms\PcmHammer\MainForm.cs:line 1269

[antus]

I think that is an obdlink problem. I also think I need to drop that interface from future versions. They are the source of nearly all the problems everyone has. The warning tells people there is a brick risk and they are untested and not recommend. Thats a soft brick, a differet supported interface will be able to fix it.

The problem is the PCM responds too fast the interface misses the response, whereas all others capture it.

[MPC001]

I think that is an obdlink problem. I also think I need to drop that interface from future versions. They are the source of nearly all the problems everyone has.

[AngelMarc]

I should have mentioned I'm using my Vlinker FS. Yes, it at least works for P01, while in vehicle. Since the OBDLink is missing/stolen.
My next purchase is Ulink NT, then, if needed, something else for this stuff.

[antus]

OK the screenshot shows its a scantool chip. So I get that it is a vlinker, but FYI that appears to be a brand of scantool and it's using the same chip and driver, so for the purposes of what I am saying, it's a known problematic chip.

[fl0wl0w]

You are welcome to use my Kernels in PCMHammer. They probably don't match PCMHammer kernels protocol, but they do offer sha256 for each block so you only have to update changed blocks. They also have LZ4 compression which is a notable performance bump for both read and write. Let me know if you want any features added or how they can better be adapted to work with PCMHammer.

https://github.com/FL0WL0W/KernelMPC567 ... Version1.0
https://github.com/FL0WL0W/KernelMPC556 ... rsion1.0.1

[antus]

Cool, thanks for the offer, I'll keep that in mind. We already do have E92 support and there is a private build that is also using that code base to read E78. But at this stage I have left can bus PCMs closed source to slow down any cloners since this functionality is not in a released build yet. I'll probably release as open source later down the line. If we do use anything from yours i'll open them up to maintain GPL licensing and proper accreditation. This one uses CRC32 for segment checksums, same as other pcmhammer kernels to date, and flash chip identification, kernel version number, and read. I havn't made a decision if to support write yet. It is supported through factory bootloader with library eg factory spec, so may not be worth duplicating the effort. The can PCMs have put a bunch of new things on the table so I have been spending the time to get the mechanics behind two possible write methods with different capability on top of features unique to PCM Hammer right now for usability and extendabiilty going forward. https://github.com/PcmHammer/PcmHammer/ ... AN-Asm-E92

[fl0wl0w]

My approach to writing is to have the flash layout stored in the Kernel and make the protocol identical for any supported ECU. So a command gets sent to request the flash layout which returns a list of block ids, their addresses, and a sha256 to use to check against the file to be written so only the needed blocks have to be erased and written.

It would be good if you could put together a document that details the custom commands supported by the Kernel. Even if it is just AI generated, it would be useful if you were the one to generate it so you can spot any AI BS. Then it would be easier for me to add the needed commands to make it compatible with PCMHammer