I'd prefer to keep support for 1.1.3 until some more testing has been done, as there may be issues regarding ac adapters and batteries by other vendors beginning with Canon firmware version 1.1.4, which could also affect version 1.1.6.
This also adds FW_VERSION to both 1.1.3 and 1.1.6 Makefiles to be able to support both, although I think platform/Makefile.platform.map needs to be changed to compile for 1.1.3.
Thanks for keeping things moving.
I've been very busy the past few weeks and couldn't find time to work/test it yet.
However, I have a few holidays now and will be able to catch up with the latest :)
Great to hear that. :)
+1 for merging this (I approved via BitBucket, others might use this option, too).
It works for me just fine, though I didn't try each and every ML function - but being a minor fw upgrade I cannot imagine any terrible bugs still lurking in the dark. With merging and nightly 6d.116 builds some more testers might chime in, and if nobody complains about blacklisted batteries my vote is for dropping 6d.113 as supporting two nearly identical fw versions with the lack of 6d devs will spread the testing base too thin.
Last not least, I do hope the new sound system will make it into trunk in the near future for a complete 6d experience w/o any terrible TL-like hacks. Maybe there's the option to do nightly 6d.116 with nss w/o merging it into trunk? Personally, I compile ML myself, but the bulk of users will rely on up-to-date pre-compiled nightly versions.
At the moment, I compile the different versions using a script that pulls my 6D.116, merges in new-sound-system, enables CONFIG_BEEP and builds ML + modules. There are some conflicts between unified and new-sound-system, but otherwise this should not be a big problem. I don't know if it would be possible to use some #ifdef magic to make it possible to switch between the new-sound system and the old one, so that cameras with support for new-sound-system could just use it. After adding all the audio ics and platforms to new-sound-system, the old one could be eliminated completely. What do you think, @g3gg0?
Interesting idea, better pm g3gg0 in the forum in case he doesn't watch this or the 6d thread. I know the 6d is just a second class citizen as there a no active real devs, but still lotsa people out there use it and it would be a good reason to speed up nss merging.
Since the last version I put online, there have been quite a few downloads from unique IPs now (230) and I received no issue reports about that version so far that do not also affect all the 6D 1.1.3 ML versions. Maybe we could go for dropping 1.1.3 after all?
I've been looking to run this through it's paces. Hopefully in the next few days. My third party batteries are working fine, so I would vote to drop 1.1.3 also.
Sure, a download isn't a user/tester but I've read of no issues of 3rd batteries stopping to work with 6d 116 (other cameras and fw versions still seem to be more picky). I'd say just drop the whole 113 stuff with this very pull request and wait if someone protests. The upside of this would be that the new nightly would be immediately 116.
Some problem with patch manager. Not sure about 1.1.3 for this one. But since it's the research branch, it doesn't effect nightlies.
Everything else appears to be working as expected.
I got the chance to use the build during a few days and managed to take several hundreds of pictures without any big issues.
There was the occasional crash during LiveView or when the camera turned itself off after timeout and bringing it back on, there was a message saying the camera crashed and modules are not loaded.
Other than that, it is pretty stable/usable
still got the crash logs on your sdcard? Would be nice if you could share them
I'll take a look but not sure if I still have them
Can you reproduce this behavior on demand? That's b/c "occasional" crash could be just about anything and not necessarily related to the 1.1.6 update, or at least not a show stopper.
My concern is that the longer this pull requests lingers in the queue doing nothing, the more people will turn up using the 1.1.6 preview and reporting arbitrary strange behaviors that isn't cross-verified to the 1.1.3 build anymore but will delay the 1.1.6 merge indefinitely... and it's not like it's a major fw update. Wanna wage a guess, what's first, merge or the 1.1.7 release :-p ?
I don't think it's tied to 116 but I cannot say for certain. After working on the conversion from 113 to 116, I can at least say that the firmware doesn't seem to have changed much so it's likely the bugs I saw are also present on 113 as well.
Personally, I approve of the pull request. I took several hundreds of pictures with different options and it was stable 95% of the time.
And unfortunately, I don't have the logs anymore. If I manage to reproduce it, I'll be sure to save the log next time.
I would merge it but drop support for 113. No need to support 2 versions. I've also seen comments on other forums that Af has been improved with 114 upwards. 3rd party batteries also have been confirmed to work.
If you approve of merging please click "approve" in bitbucket (top right corner), more people +1'ing this could further the possibility of this getting into nightly in due course.