Android15 lenovo m10 #89
Conversation
| @@ -1474,6 +1479,15 @@ private void startDFUFlash() { | |||
| .setKeepBond(true) | |||
| .setForeground(true) | |||
| .setZip( getCachePathAppZip()); | |||
|
|
|||
| // https://github.com/microbit-foundation/microbit-android/issues/82 | |||
| // ? if ( Build.HARDWARE.equals("ums512_1h10")) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are you still consider this as an option? Or leaving in case we want to broaden it to other manufacturers/devices with the same hardware in future?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure what is the best way to catch the required devices. I felt most comfortable with using the names, but I had seen this:
https://github.com/NordicSemiconductor/Android-DFU-Library/blob/94e8f9a8def016fab237d2d480698c3b3957e280/lib/dfu/src/main/java/no/nordicsemi/android/dfu/BaseDfuImpl.java#L745
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Interesting! I guess in the ideal world we'd test with a different vendor's ums512_1h10 (presumably that string came from your test device?) but that's not likely to be possible.
I'm happy going either way based on your judgement. If the slowdown isn't too bad maybe it's better to use the hardware and potentially fix more devices at the risk of perhaps making some working devices a bit slower? Please decide and merge one or the other.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I just removed the comment. I didn't time them, but had the impression the M10 isn't as slow as my Samsung A8, but still I wouldn't want the slow down imposed on a device that was working before!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Android 15 PR separately reviewed by @microbit-grace and approved.
The Lenovo workaround looks fine but the commented out line lacks context for why we've kept it so unclear whether it's intentional. Perhaps it could have an explanation if we want to keep it? Approving to unblock.
This is the same as #88, but with an extra commit to fix V2 DFU from Lenovo M10.