Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

eevblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 315 posts

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#221

Post by rasz_pl »

mhandley wrote: post #121
0x0 wrote: post #19

I hope this causes a major and publicly visible malfunction in some important device/installation/machinery, of course with no harm done to any persons, but enough of an embarrasment to really set an example, so no vendor will think of pulling tricks like these in the future. Takeaway lesson: End users should never touch anything remotely FTDI-like, since it's probably impossible to verify if the device is genuine or…

Well, that didn't take long! Arduino Nano's on Ebay are already starting to ship with the CH340G instead of the FTDI clone. Way to go FTDI - pissed off your end users and caused manufacturers to move to a completely different chipset. That worked out well for you didn't it? http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Nano-V3-0-ATmega328-16M-Micro-cont...

of course you realize those chinese clones NEVER EVER shipped with genuine FTDI chips in the first place, right?

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#223

Post by imrehg »

Vendan wrote: post #191
Vendan wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not sure, but shouldn't you be able to use the ATMEGA32U4-AU as the microcontroller and get usb for free? Here's a good place to start for a bootloader that'll do your usb setup for you... http://forum.arduino.cc/index.php?topic=124459.15

Just looked at your product idea, see you already had planned a good microcontroller. Maybe replace the FTDI with the ATMEGA and make a firmware that'll allow in circuit programming so you really can't brick the main microcontroller?

Yeah, people suggested something similar before[1], and definitely will research it. Using two of the ATmegas might not work (the miniPCIe form factor is tiny!), I wonder if a single chip could do that, at the expense of maybe some storage? The current setup needs almost no custom work, and for the proof-of-concept version I'd rather not do firmware programming if I can avoid it (but then maybe I can't be picky about the FTDI:)

Thanks for the suggestion!

[1]: http://www.reddit.com/r/arduino/comments/2ehosj/pcieduino_fe...

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#224

Post by rasz_pl »

imrehg wrote: post #174

I'm designing an Arduino-compatible board[1] that supposed to have an FTDI chip for ease of design. This whole thing makes me reconsider it, what would be the best way to replace it some other solution? Do I have any real option if I want to stay within the Open Parts Library[2]? [1]: https://www.hwtrek.com/product_preview/VTZUZV9k [2]: http://www.seeedstudio.com/wiki/Open_parts_library

Best way would be designing it with GENUINE parts instead of planning to populate your own boards with ebay specials.

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#225

Post by nknighthb »

sigterm wrote: post #220
userbinator wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But how is the driver to know what's written on the chip?

You mean how the driver tells the counterfeit apart? I don't really know. One possibility is that the counterfeit didn't copy some of the "don't care" cases exactly.

You completely missed the point. The driver cannot possibly know the difference between a chip falsely sold as being an FTDI chip, and one that is compatible without being mislabeled.

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#226

Post by Vendan »

rasz_pl wrote: post #224
imrehg wrote: post #174

I'm designing an Arduino-compatible board[1] that supposed to have an FTDI chip for ease of design. This whole thing makes me reconsider it, what would be the best way to replace it some other solution? Do I have any real option if I want to stay within the Open Parts Library[2]? [1]: https://www.hwtrek.com/product_preview/VTZUZV9k [2]: http://www.seeedstudio.com/wiki/Open_parts_library

Best way would be designing it with GENUINE parts instead of planning to populate your own boards with ebay specials.

People are allowed to choose the parts they want to use. I call it voting with your wallet. Maybe FTDI will realize that people don't want to use their products when they pull stunts like this.

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#227

Post by analog31 »

FigBug wrote: post #52
smilekzs wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't see your post when I was posting mine, but anyway -- CP210x.

Do you know if it supports non-standard baud rates on OS X> (Maybe Linux too?) I use FTDI because I can easily run comm ports at 3 Mbit/s. OSX (and I think Linux too) does support comm ports at non common baud rates. I'm looking for a way to add decently quick USB comms to a device without writing my own drivers. FTDI seems like the only option. Using HID is limited to 64KB/s.

Yes, Linux too. I'm running 2 MHz, the fastest that my jelly bean microcontroller du jour can do. I'm using FTDI on the remote end, and Python serial port drivers on the PC. I'm finding that with relatively little effort, I can make my gadgets and support software run on both Windows and Linux with no code changes, which probably sounds pretty mundane to experienced hackers, but is a convenient benefit nonetheless.

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#228

Post by nknighthb »

tmp26 wrote: post #211
jessaustin wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question: are you participating in this thread as a greenbean because you want to hide your identity from harassment from those who disagree with your unpopular opinion, or because you want to hide the fact that you are affiliated with FTDI?

Honestly? I rotate accounts on most major sites periodically. It is a tinfoil-hat foible, a way to distance myself from the exceedingly dumb things I have almost certainly said in years past. Unfortunately for me, I chose today to rotate. I don't work for FTDI; I'm not even British. But I did build that Adafruit altoid tin MP3 player eight years ago, which used a FT232. Why am I wasting my time on this argument? I do…

It's interesting that you're more eager to dispel the notion that you work for FTDI than that you support the crime of destruction of property. You need to think long and hard about the direction of your moral compass.

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#229

Post by Vendan »

imrehg wrote: post #223
Vendan wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just looked at your product idea, see you already had planned a good microcontroller. Maybe replace the FTDI with the ATMEGA and make a firmware that'll allow in circuit programming so you really can't brick the main microcontroller?

Yeah, people suggested something similar before[1], and definitely will research it. Using two of the ATmegas might not work (the miniPCIe form factor is tiny!), I wonder if a single chip could do that, at the expense of maybe some storage? The current setup needs almost no custom work, and for the proof-of-concept version I'd rather not do firmware programming if I can avoid it (but then maybe I can't be picky about…

Look at the datasheet, it's got a usb DFU bootloader loaded by default. :) Biggest issue would just be making sure it can switch over to serial mode, but that's already done in arduino's, so should be pretty easy.

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#230

Post by sigterm »

nknighthb wrote: post #225
sigterm wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean how the driver tells the counterfeit apart? I don't really know. One possibility is that the counterfeit didn't copy some of the "don't care" cases exactly.

You completely missed the point. The driver cannot possibly know the difference between a chip falsely sold as being an FTDI chip, and one that is compatible without being mislabeled.

I got your point now. But then my comment was trying to point out that a "compatible chip" isn't really competing if its branding is deceitful. Whether it's possible for a driver to tell the difference between counterfeit and legitimate compatible chips isn't really relevant here.

Besides, any legitimate compatible chip vendor will need to have their own VID, which also means they need to develop their own compatible driver.

Post reply on HN