LiteOn iHBS112/212/312 Crossflashing & Firmware: Looking for a few tips?

vbimport

#82

This thread is new to me, i’ve been gone, so much to absorb, cvs, anywhere, and Albert you two have been busy crossflashing without me! :slight_smile:


#83

I have found that BW-12B1ST 1.02 firmware is for 1st generation drives. Look at this:

Could you please correct the first post?


#84

[QUOTE=blackened2687;2754892]I have found that BW-12B1ST 1.02 firmware is for 1st generation drives. Look at this:

Could you please correct the first post?[/QUOTE]

So… Cxxx appears in all 1st generation, and Pxxx appears in all 2nd generation firmware?

Please verify that I have corrected the post you’re talking about.


#85

So, here is what I’ve figured out.

The location I have shown is the location of “internal firmware version”. Very good example of this is Plextor PX-880SA which exists in two versions - with LS and without it. LS version contains ZP3x here, and non-LS version contains BP3x (where “x” is a fourth character).

Many ASUS-branded LiteOn DVD and BD drives have xAxx there, where “x” before A is in very many cases the same character as in original LiteOn firmware version, for example DRW-24B1ST 1.03 = BA29, DRW-22B3L 1.00 = 7A21, DRW-22B2L b 1.03 = 7A2L, DRW-24B3LT 1.00 = GA21 and so on.

In the case of BW-12B1ST it’s CA2x in 1st gen firmwares and PA2x in 2nd gen firmwares. And in the case of BW-12B1LT these versions [B]should be[/B] 5A2x and HA2x, but I can’t check it myself yet, since I don’t have any BW-12B1LT firmware (owners of BW-12B1LT, please dump your firmwares :)).

Also, Plextor PX-B950SA versions are NP3x (2nd gen only) and PX-LB950SA versions are DP3x (1st gen) and VP3x (2nd gen).

And here are two more Plextor PX-LB950SA firmwares - 1.01 for 2nd gen drives and 1.03 for 1st gen drives:

Firmwares were extracted from official flashers.

Note that this 1.03 version is NOT the version from the 6th post of this topic - that version is [B]VP34[/B] and made for 2nd gen drives! And 1st gen version which I’ve uploaded is [B]DP34[/B] - that is the version which can be updated to 1.06 from 6th post (which internal version is [B]DP37[/B])


#86

Okay, thank you for this information! :slight_smile:


#87

[QUOTE=blackened2687;2754896]
Firmwares were extracted from official flashers.
[/QUOTE]

Please could you explain how you did it?


#88

[B]HM01[/B], as I have said few times before, I just cut them from a dump of process memory. So, technically it’s not an extraction, it’s ripping.


#89

Hi Albert,

It seems pl03.bin was uploaded instead of pl06.bin on the first page of the thread. Would you be so kind to upload pl06.bin? I am trying to use dosflash32 on a vista32 laptop and there is one byte difference in two pl06 savings. It is strange too I do not have to execute dosflash as admin and to use dseo dosflash works with this little mistake :slight_smile:


#90

[QUOTE=judo;2756378]Hi Albert,

It seems pl03.bin was uploaded instead of pl06.bin on the first page of the thread. Would you be so kind to upload pl06.bin? I am trying to use dosflash32 on a vista32 laptop and there is one byte difference in two pl06 savings. It is strange too I do not have to execute dosflash as admin and to use dseo dosflash works with this little mistake :)[/QUOTE]

Sorry; that was a copy-&-paste error. Fixed the link. Try again?


#91

Thanks for the upload. There are more differences so something is not good or I misunderstand something. I’ll check it later.


#92

All differences are above the 1e0000 address in pl06, is this normal?
I compared pl06.bins that was saved with dosflash from an ihbs112-04 and an ihbs112-15 by me and the downloded pl06.


#93

There is nothing important after address 1e0000 in iHBS112 CL0K, iHBS112 PL06, BWU-500S 2.63, BD-W512GSA PT11, or PX-B950SA 1.01. It is just empty space (all 1111… or FFFF…), so I think the differences do not matter; maybe it is just the extra EEPROM information (which isn’t overwritten when doing a normal flash).


#94

I thought something similar. There are differences in the pl06s of the different devices, a few hundred bytes all is in this region. There are differences in the the different savings of the same device, a few bytes all is in this region. Maybe the sata interface is not stable so I am playing with it a bit yet. Why are the errors all above 1e0000, some overlapping ram buffer in this address region?
To where can I upload the firmwares?


#95

[QUOTE=judo;2756502]
To where can I upload the firmwares?[/QUOTE]

We tend to use a file sharing site like Zippyshare.


#96

Two last savings from the two ihbs112:


#97

[QUOTE=judo;2756517]Two last savings from the two ihbs112:

http://www76.zippyshare.com/v/ZdMmwwIf/file.html[/QUOTE]

Yes, the data past 1e0000 looks like a mirror of the EEPROM data, which is valid. It maybe includes extra drive data that does not exist in an EEPROM backup. I wouldn’t say it is anything to worry about; I do not think it is corrupt.


#98

[QUOTE=Albert;2756529]Yes, the data past 1e0000 looks like a mirror of the EEPROM data, which is valid. It maybe includes extra drive data that does not exist in an EEPROM backup. I wouldn’t say it is anything to worry about; I do not think it is corrupt.[/QUOTE]

I crossflashed the ihbs 112-02-04 with the px-950sa fw 1.04 from your uploads. This is the problematic drive that I wrote about in the other thread earlier. I know it is not perfect from then when I bought an other ihbs112. Here it is 37 degrees (Celsius) at 19h so maybe this is the cause why the plexutils is a bit hectic. For example the bler test does not start or stops in the middle. The basic tests are ok, the laser test too and the iops are below 6% (I think this means good), but the drive is not beetter than before. I think I will play with the laser power when the weather lets it. I appreciate your help truly.


#99

The laser “power tuning” in plexutils does not change anything but the spindle motor test fails when there is a disc in the tray, when empty the test passes. Do you know what the check measure ? There is not much info about plexutils.


#100

I don’t know for sure, but I can guess: Without a disc, the “Spindle Motor Test” checks to see if it can spin the spindle. But with a disc, it will probably check different speeds. With the disc, the spindle motor can’t spin as fast as it needs to, so it fails.

OR maybe, with a disc, the laser is used to measure the speed of the disc. If the laser is bad, the drive will think it cannot spin the disc properly.

If the “spindle motor test” fails ONLY with a BD disc inside (but succeeds with a DVD or CD), then the BD laser is weak/dying. In that case, the PlexUtilities laser test is inaccurate, or cannot detect the problem (maybe the mechanical part of the OPU is bad, so it cannot focus the laser or remain on-track).

If the “spindle motor test” fails with CD, DVD, and BD, then the spindle motor is bad, and discs will not spin correctly. (Or the inside of the drive is dirty, which is unlikely).


#101

It fails with any disc not only with bd perhaps two times it succeded from about 30. But reads well cd,dvdr, single sided bdr, bd-rom, the latters not always only almost always. I took it apart earlier it is not dirty. Interesting the disc does not spin up when the test fails but when it is trying to read a double sided bd it is working hard. Not much chance to get a motor or does not worth the effort, I think.