| Author |
Message |
hd07
Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 263
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 9:55 Post subject: Which cfg to use for HY27UV08BG5M?
|
|
I tried to use HY27UV08AG5_b2 and change the MB from 1024 to 4096 as it is a 4GB USB flash memory.
But it does not work. The diff is big.
Also I tried 1 bank (diff: 6076f000) and 2 banks (diff: 8c3df000).
Thanks.
phil
PS: I disable the read ID as the ID is ad d5 55 a5.
|
|
|
Сергей
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 20281
Flash-Extractor developer
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 12:07 Post subject:
|
|
Test all banks with Read_ID.
I this chip contain 2 banks by 2GB.
So, take HY27UV08AG5_b2, with MB = 2048.
Get 2 dumps.
|
|
|
hd07
Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 263
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 10:08 Post subject:
|
|
| Сергей wrote: | | Get 2 dumps. |
Hi Sergey,
Yes, I got the 2 dumps but with mix. I tried split by dump, and by block with all the parameters, block size 0x4200, 0x8400, 0x10800, 0x21000, but I can not remove the mix. 300K to your ftp as hd07-300K
- Flash type: USB
- Controller name: sk6281,ABPC,BT0731 H20335
- Flash chips amount:4GB
- Flash chip name:HY27UV08BG5M
- Config file content (Show config)
MNG = samsung
ID = ad d5 55 a5
Bits = 8
page = 2112
Block = 0x0
MB = 2048
COL = 2
RAW = 3
READ = 30
SBACK = 0
RE_Down = 4
RE_Up = 2
SE_ = 0
- Dumps amount: 2GB each, total 2 dumps
- Do you found FAT? Yes, after invert, ftp 300k saved as hd07-300k
- Is there mix? Yes
- Do you remove mix? No.
- Do you found NTFS? Yes.
Thanks.
Phil
PS: dump2, I can see
17 17 18 18
19 19 1a 1a
1b 1b 1c 1c
1d 1d 1e 1e
1F 1F 20 20
21 21 22 22
23 23 24 24
25 25 26 26
27 27 28 28
...
after a while , about 0x9130500 - 0x90e4000
in the same dump2, I can see
91 91 92 92
93 93 94 94
95 95 96 96
97 97 98 98
99 99 9a 9a
...
From another dump1
03 03 04 04
05 05 06 06
07 07 08 08
09 09 0a 0a
0b 0b 0c 0c
0d 0d 0e 0e
0f 0f 10 10
11 11 12 12
13 13 14 14
15 15 16 16
17 17 18 18
19 19 1a 1a
1b 1b 1c 1c
...
So it looks to me, each dump has mix, but I am not sure about the block size, and I do not know how to split it.
|
|
|
Сергей
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 20281
Flash-Extractor developer
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 14:52 Post subject:
|
|
| hd07 wrote: | | I tried split by dump, and by block with all the parameters, block size 0x4200, 0x8400, 0x10800, 0x21000, but I can not remove the mix. |
Wrong way.
First find mix parts.
Then join them together.
I insert in your message missed sector with red color.
As you can see mix consist of 4 parts.
Each part consist of 4 sectors.
Now you found only 2 parts.
They called "In near dump".
So look in "Near Block" and "Second half of dump".
Your first task is find missed sectors.
When you do this, we think how to join them.
You can use this step by step algorithm:
Block_Number / English / Mixes / Detection
At friday i help another man with same flash, but 4GB and 4 dumps.
If both of you make photos of your devices, you easely can find statistic on you device.
Ou :)
I see your flash is absolutly same :)
But you use wrong config.
This chip have 4 banks, so you need get 4 dumps by 1GB.
|
|
|
Сергей
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 20281
Flash-Extractor developer
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 17:43 Post subject:
|
|
|
Сергей
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 20281
Flash-Extractor developer
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 18:54 Post subject:
|
|
May be i'm wrong :)
Your chip 8BG5, his 8BGF.
So, Read_ID say true.
|
|
|
hd07
Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 263
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:40 Post subject:
|
|
| Сергей wrote: | | Your chip 8BG5, his 8BGF. So, Read_ID say true. |
Hi Sergey,
Thanks for your info. I am still struggling on it.
I noticed the difference and am trying both: 2 banks and 4 banks.
I manually enter my chip ID.
For 4 banks, there are all the 00 for the 3rd and 4th bank, so maybe it is a 2 banks.
For 2 banks, the last half of dump (dump1 and dump2) seems to be 00. Maybe the user only use half of 4GB memory.
But so far, what I got the best result is with 4 banks, but only use the 1st (1GB) and 2nd (1GB) dumps. The results are corruptted, but have the info of fat, root, folders, and files.
I will give you more reports and making the photo later.
Thanks for your help.
Phil
|
|
|
Сергей
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 20281
Flash-Extractor developer
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:56 Post subject:
|
|
| hd07 wrote: | | But so far, what I got the best result is with 4 banks, but only use the 1st (1GB) and 2nd (1GB) dumps. The results are corruptted, but have the info of fat, root, folders, and files. |
What results, explain more:
1. Sectors of FAT come in place in dump?
2. Do you see diffs at FAT32->Compare tables?
3. Do you see diffs at FAT32->Check_Dirs?
|
|
|
hd07
Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 263
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 2:12 Post subject:
|
|
| Сергей wrote: | What results, explain more:
1. Sectors of FAT come in place in dump?
2. Do you see diffs at FAT32->Compare tables?
3. Do you see diffs at FAT32->Check_Dirs? |
Here are what I did following WOLF's post and I have the best results so far:
1. DUMP chip into 4 pieces.
Dump1
DUMP2
DUMP3, all 00
DUMP4, all 00
2. Invert 2 as:
INVERT1
INVERT2
3. For each inverted dump:
Split by 42000
Join by 2112
Getting:
Join1
Join2
4. images Join by Block 4224:
Join1 + Join2 = Join_1_2
Mix fixed.
5. Utility Block_Number / 0000
Block Size: 0x21000 ( WOLF is 0x210000 )
Sector: 2048/64
Marker: 2059/2060 ( WOLF is 2058 )
Mask: 0xfff ( I tried both 0xfff and 0xffff )
Invert: CHECK ( tried both check and uncheck )
>1. Sectors of FAT come in place in dump?
Yes, mix fixed.
>2. Do you see diffs at FAT32->Compare tables?
Yes
>3. Do you see diffs at FAT32->Check_Dirs?
Yes
There are a lot of banks, but only 2 found spaces.
By the way, I tried 4 dumps.
Thanks.
Phil
|
|
|
Сергей
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 20281
Flash-Extractor developer
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 2:25 Post subject:
|
|
Every time you can put full dump on ftp and i help!
Send me on [mail]
Dump_Search / Listing
Block_Size 0x21000
Sector 2048/64
I think Block_Size is wrong.
Calc with me:
Split by 42000
Join by 2112
Join by 4224
0x42000 * 2 * 2 = 0x108000 !!!
|
|
|
hd07
Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 263
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:40 Post subject:
|
|
| Сергей wrote: |
Dump_Search / Listing
Block_Size 0x21000
Sector 2048/64, 0x108000 !!! |
You are right, after listen, it should be 0x21000 * 8 =0x108000
But no block size and bank space fail. Maybe I should use different util instead of the block number / 0000? These markers look like
FF 6F FC 00 5E 3A
FF 6F EC 00 5E 3A
FF 6F DC 00 5E 3A
...
I emailed the listen and ftp the 300k, "hd07-300k-from-2-dumps"
Thanks.
Phil
|
|
|
Сергей
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 20281
Flash-Extractor developer
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:17 Post subject:
|
|
I see in log:
Block_Number / 0000
Block Size: 0x108000
Sector: 2048/64
Marker: 2059/2058
Mask: 0x0fff
Invert: true
What results you get with this settings?
|
|
|
hd07
Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 263
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 19:34 Post subject:
|
|
| Сергей wrote: | I see in log:
Block_Number / 0000
Block Size: 0x108000
Sector: 2048/64
Marker: 2059/2058
Mask: 0x0fff
Invert: true
What results you get with this settings? |
Hi Sergey,
Wow, thank you so much, the results seem perfect now.
1) I used the 2 bank dumps.
2) the bank space failes, I leave it as 0x0.
Thanks again.
Phil
|
|
|
Сергей
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 20281
Flash-Extractor developer
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 22:04 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
