BootloaderDFU.c replies with wrong signature about lufa

[abcminiuser]

Hi Reuti, sorry I left this one dangling for so very long.

The manufacturer code isn't actually the 0x1E you expect; I can't remember where this is sourced from, but it's a differently allocated value to the regular Atmel manufacturer code that people know from the ISP signature (somewhat similar to the JTAG device manufacturer ID, which is different again). The 0x1E manufacturer is actually the first byte of the AVR's signature. This means that what the host sees for the AT90USB1287 is 0x58 0x1E 0x97 0x82.

The access is indeed broken, and I very unwisely forgot the bounds checks. I've cleaned this up in 6b06bc6 for the next release. Thanks!

[Reuti]

Hi,

Am 08.11.2015 um 04:51 schrieb Dean Camera [email protected]:

Hi Reuti, sorry I left this one dangling for so very long.

The manufacturer code isn't actually the 0x1E you expect; I can't remember where this is sourced from, but it's a differently allocated value to the regular Atmel manufacturer code that people know from the ISP signature (somewhat similar to the JTAG device manufacturer ID, which is different again). The 0x1E manufacturer is actually the first byte of the AVR's signature. This means that what the host sees for the AT90USB1287 is 0x58 0x1E 0x97 0x82.

Thx for the clarification - I wasn't aware of this.

The access is indeed broken, and I very unwisely forgot the bounds checks. I've cleaned this up in 6b06bc6 for the next release. Thanks!

Perfectly solved.

Regards -- Reuti