that point that you have the orange wire attached to connects to the via between the 33ohm resistor and the hana chip on top of the board you want to attach it to FT2R2.
Incorrect Martin C, on both counts.as I thought.
NANDHealer is a pointless app as it's just checking files to see if they match.
It doesn't check the INTEGRITY.
Upload your NAND and post the link. I'm on my way home now but I'll take a look when I'm in.
Ok - so maybe a bad choice of word.Incorrect Martin C, on both counts.
I wrote XNandhealer for the purpose of reading the Nand quickly and correctly. As well as comparing any nand with all others, it verifies the data in each block with the ecc bytes in the spare, so it certainly does check the integrity. Change any one single bit in the whole nand and you'll see that it is reported as an ecc error.
If Xnandhealer says the nands are good, they are good (even in version 0.51 which was used here).
Yes, agreed it does not analyze content - now I see what you meantOk - so maybe a bad choice of word.
Integrity may be good, based on ecc bytes but it doesn't check the validity of the NAND dump. Proof in this case is the dump had already had the XeLL ecc written into it and XNANDhealer doesn't check for it, so it doesn't complain. People using it don't understand that whilst what they've read may be 'good', it doesn't mean it's valid. Case in point - the dump posted checked out in xnandhealer but fails to open anywhere else because the data's not correct for a NAND image.
Welcome to the noob section :rolleyes2:If there are people who think that they can read their nand, mangle it for their own purpose and rely on a green tick to answer the question of "Have I done everything correctly?", well...... :wink:
Probably hijacked this enough - I'll send you a PM.Welcome to the noob section :rolleyes2:
Any chance you can jig xnandhealer to do a basic check on CB/CF/CG etc as well as any bad blocks and config check (config on SB NAND should be at 0x3DE and BB at 0xEF7)?
I would much prefer to use the one tool myself and since yours does more error checking, I'd prefer it to be yours![]()