feat: add Inovelli LZW31 v1.52 (beta) and v1.57 #61
Conversation
|
I noticed that both firmwares have the same checksum, despite having different names and version numbers. I loaded one into my switch and it reported 1.57. I also noticed that the production version is ahead of the beta version. I submitted a support request with the manufacturer to explain these oddities. |
…ersion with basic scene support.
"It does look like both of those files are the same. I looked through my archive and I do not have a different version for 1.56 so it seems like that version may be lost to into the void. Version 1.57 should be the correct version to use." - Eric Maycock (CTO of Inovelli)
|
Copying the check output here: Error: firmwares/inovelli/LZW31.json, version 1.52, target 0 Expected: sha256:e52ec035ba3111823fefbd8459b2ac2da19779fb87eeb9536e95e6e6f9a447b2
Got: sha256:1a15dbc0143473b9af8e9bb7a8540e20b67d867362ff90b11e5dd1286f83c741Error: firmwares/inovelli/LZW31.json, version 1.57, target 0 Expected: sha256:4567da33054658cc52d2df43447c74b361813495ece3429d44a8c9bcd3106bb2
Got: sha256:a994cb634cd0a69bed095a2586c192cde012343fd99088f26bd7b5d0b94472d7Did you use https://github.com/zwave-js/firmware-integrity to generate the hashes? |
|
Nope, I used sha256sum. That seems to work for the .bin but not the .otz. See new commit. |
|
Yeah, essentially all files except bin are encoded (mostly Intel HEX), but the checksum operates on the raw/decoded firmware data. |
|
Tests look good. @InovelliUSA can you please confirm this is all correct? |
AlCalzone
changed the title
|
Yes, it looks good to me. Firmware version 1.52 is sometimes requested because it is the only version that has basic scene control (the black series usually doesn't have scene control). It was removed after 1.52 because MCU flash storage was extremely low. So 1.57 as production and 1.52 as beta I think will be good here. |
reference manufacturers website for firmware details