This is where the BIN Hackers and definition junkies discuss the inner workings of the EEC code and hardware. General tuning questions do not go here. Only technical/hardware-specific/code questions and discussions belong here.

Moderators: cgrey8, EDS50, Jon 94GT, 2Shaker

jsa
Tuning Addict
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2013 7:28 pm
Location: 'straya

Re: Attn: CGrey8 - proposed GUFB patch tweak

Post by jsa » Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:26 am

sailorbob wrote: Sat Jun 29, 2019 12:30 pm Your modification risks crashing the code as the check for the zero marker will be missed if there are no datalog payload items. You are also reducing the number of payload items.
Last time I looked BE only loads the patch code if a payload item is selected for logging, so that situation should not arise.

The number of payload items is not limited by the console code space, the payload list can go elsewhere.
Cheers

John

95 Escort RS Cosworth - CARD QUIK COSY ANTI / GHAJ0
Moates QH & BE
ForDiag

sailorbob
BIN Hacker
Posts: 1759
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 6:10 am

Re: Attn: CGrey8 - proposed GUFB patch tweak

Post by sailorbob » Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:33 am

That's the theory. However, over the years, I have been sent several calibrations that contain the patch code but no payload items that people have read from their tuning device.

jsa
Tuning Addict
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2013 7:28 pm
Location: 'straya

Re: Attn: CGrey8 - proposed GUFB patch tweak

Post by jsa » Thu Jul 25, 2019 4:18 am

Not seen that occur myself. Were they written by BE?

So [R0] was being written to the offset address in those cases?
Cheers

John

95 Escort RS Cosworth - CARD QUIK COSY ANTI / GHAJ0
Moates QH & BE
ForDiag

User avatar
cgrey8
Administrator
Posts: 11223
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 5:54 am
Location: Acworth, Ga (Metro Atlanta)
Contact:

Re: Attn: CGrey8 - proposed GUFB patch tweak

Post by cgrey8 » Thu Jul 25, 2019 6:05 am

sailorbob wrote: Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:33 am That's the theory. However, over the years, I have been sent several calibrations that contain the patch code but no payload items that people have read from their tuning device.
I wonder if it was TunerPro that was responsible for that? TunerPro's ability to datalog the QH came very late in the game. It wouldn't surprise me if this subtly was overlooked. With it being free, it's become an enticing option for people looking to save a buck.

BTW I edited the title of the thread. I got tired of seeing my moniker in the title when the thread has morphed way past this being directed at me.
...Always Somethin'

89 Ranger Supercab, 331 w/GT40p heads, ported Explorer lower, Crane Powermax 2020 cam, FMS Explorer (GT40p) headers, aftermarket T5 'Z-Spec', GUFB, Moates QuarterHorse tuned using BE&EA

Member V8-Ranger.com

sailorbob
BIN Hacker
Posts: 1759
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 6:10 am

Re: Proposed GUFB patch tweak

Post by sailorbob » Thu Jan 06, 2022 6:09 am

Chucko wrote: Thu Jun 27, 2019 11:14 pmI was farting around with the 8061 documentation, and took a look at the patch in the GUFB strategy document that copies the 0-page (internal register) locations out to where the QH or TwEECer can observe them.
An important point to note is that the patchcode referred to in this thread is for the QH and not the TwEECer (which requires a different patchcode).

BTW, if you want to tweak the patchcode further you can change the datablock pointer update routine from loading the 'number of levels' at 0x2020 into the 0x001A loop counter via a long indexed instruction to a immediate instruction loading 0x08 into 0x001A. This will save a couple more bytes from the patchcode. The reason being that since the patchcode is specific to each strategy the loop counter value can be hard coded to suit the number of datablock pointers.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest