Roebeet and I have confirmed that the 1.2 bootloader is not locked, it just has changes that other devices have gained before the Gtablet.
The 1.2 bootloader is compatible with pershoot's Zpad kernel and Adam kernels. The newer bootloader causes older kernels to fail because it requires extra voltage levels from the bootloader.
Check out Pershoot's Zpad option here: https://github.com/pershoot/gtab-2632/commit/6665ebaa6cd071d4669578983e82ea36d58fc68a
The Gtab can run Pershoot's Zpad kernel on the 1.2 bootloader. This means that the Zpad and Adam's bootloaders were from a newer branch of Malata's internal smba1002 kernel repo. If any future Gtablet or Adam kernels come out past 2.6.32, they will most likely be incompatible with the 1.1 Gtab bootloader, so it is best if people start moving ROMs on to 1.2 to prepare. We know that Notion Ink has Malata working on a post 2.6.32 kernel.
I know Roebeet is updating his mods to run this new setup, so watch out for them.
Bottom Line:
- If you run a 1.1 ROM now, you can continue to do so.
- If you want to prepare for future development, just transition your next version to using Pershoot's kernel for 1.2 and the 1.2 bootloader
Hmm, seems some apologies are in order.
Good stuff guys. Glad to see that the G-Tab will be able to move on to the new stuff.
We really think this is an opportunity for the Adam and Gtablet efforts to unite under one effort. The system images have always been easily ported to each other, now the kernels are also.
rothnic said:
We really think this is an opportunity for the Adam and Gtablet efforts to unite under one effort. The system images have always been easily ported to each other, now the kernels are also.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I also think this is the way to go. It's rumored NI is going to release a GB update soon ( It should have hardware acceleration since it is from NI). Also there is a tremendous dev effort going on porting HC to Adam, in addition to NI's promise for HC.
ive updated the compatibility listing.
Fantastic news. Thanks for sharing.
Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk
rothnic said:
Roebeet and I have confirmed that the 1.2 bootloader is not locked, it just has changes that other devices have gained before the Gtablet.
The 1.2 bootloader is compatible with pershoot's Zpad kernel and Adam kernels. The newer bootloader causes older kernels to fail because it requires extra voltage levels from the bootloader.
The Gtab can run Pershoot's Zpad kernel on the 1.2 bootloader. This means that the Zpad and Adam's bootloaders were from a newer branch of Malata's internal smba1002 kernel repo. If any future Gtablet or Adam kernels come out past 2.6.32, they will most likely be incompatible with the 1.1 Gtab bootloader, so it is best if people start moving ROMs on to 1.2 to prepare. We know that Notion Ink has Malata working on a post 2.6.32 kernel.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
pershoot said:
ive updated the compatibility listing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
rothnic/pershoot- this is good news for the zPad and Adam - but not concerned about those devices, even if they're related. This is about the gTablet and if this bootloader requires certain things that come direct from the manufacturer - and discourage the custom creation and modification of kernels - how is that not locked?
If we have to use the zPad kernel on the gTablet because voltages have to be higher (odd) then don't we lose the advancements pershoot has made in the overclocking of the gTablet? And how does staying with a manufacturers regulated bootloader help with people who have decided not to use the crud coming from the manufacturers and instead want to make their gTablet more than it can be? Why are we still thinking we have to follow the manufacturer like sheep and not break away and become more?
Looking for answers, not trying to be antagonistic. Looking out for the community at large as well.
Good work on figuring that out for those on TnT and stock-based MODs. If it were going to be anybody it'd be you guys!
jerdog said:
rothnic/pershoot- this is good news for the zPad and Adam - but not concerned about those devices, even if they're related. This is about the gTablet and if this bootloader requires certain things that come direct from the manufacturer - and discourage the custom creation and modification of kernels - how is that not locked?
If we have to use the zPad kernel on the gTablet because voltages have to be higher (odd) then don't we lose the advancements pershoot has made in the overclocking of the gTablet? And how does staying with a manufacturers regulated bootloader help with people who have decided not to use the crud coming from the manufacturers and instead want to make their gTablet more than it can be? Why are we still thinking we have to follow the manufacturer like sheep and not break away and become more?
Good work on figuring that out for those on TnT and stock-based MODs. If it were going to be anybody it'd be you guys!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the voltages are not higher.
old/new bootloader kernel is the same (save for the attenuation of the extra voltage step). this is to update to the current standard of the device, as layed out by Nvidia.
Thats awesome news, and thanks Rothnic for posting it. I'm running one of Roebeets 1.2 ROMs now, so I look forward to being able to get pershoots custom kernel on it.
karlkarloff said:
Thats awesome news, and thanks Rothnic for posting it. I'm running one of Roebeets 1.2 ROMs now, so I look forward to being able to get pershoots custom kernel on it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
just flash the 0430 .zip from droidbasement labelled 'newbl', and you'll be set. that rom is froyo, so choose froyo.
if it doesnt flash properly with the stock recovery, then create a boot.img for yourself, stick that in the rom .zip, and flash.
pershoot said:
the voltages are not higher.
old/new bootloader kernel is the same (save for the attenuation of the extra voltage step). this is to update to the current standard of the device, as layed out by Nvidia.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmm - haven't seen any new standards from nVidia. Do you have a link?
So those wishing to use your kernel need to use the "new Malata bootloader" ones if they are on the 1.2 bootloader? Are you still going to be separating the kernels for those who want to stay away from what a manufacturer pushes and wish to stay with CM and other custom builds?
pershoot said:
just flash the 0430 .zip from droidbasement labelled 'newbl', and you'll be set. that rom is froyo, so choose froyo.
if it doesnt flash properly with the stock recovery, then create a boot.img for yourself, stick that in the rom .zip, and flash.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're definitely going to need to provide a procedure for the above and then support it because there is a LIMITED few who even understand what you just told this user to do.
jerdog said:
Hmm - haven't seen any new standards from nVidia. Do you have a link?
So those wishing to use your kernel need to use the "new Malata bootloader" ones if they are on the 1.2 bootloader? Are you still going to be separating the kernels for those who want to stay away from what a manufacturer pushes and wish to stay with CM and other custom builds?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yes, just look at my github.
the kernels are seperate. this is outlined in the downloads and in source.
jerdog said:
You're definitely going to need to provide a procedure for the above and then support it because there is a LIMITED few who even understand what you just told this user to do.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
just flash the .zip in recovery as you would any rom.
that's all.
if it hangs (it shouldn't, as someone else just did this without issue: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=13588874&postcount=5), then you wait for someone to produce a boot.img in a 1.2 rom.
pershoot said:
just flash the .zip in recovery as you would any rom.
that's all.
if it hangs (it shouldn't, as someone else just did this without issue: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=13588874&postcount=5), then you wait for someone to produce a boot.img in a 1.2 rom.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yeah - but you told the user to create a new boot.img, put it in the rom.zip and flash.... not wait for someone else. And what's the fall-back?
pershoot said:
yes, just look at my github.
the kernels are seperate. this is outlined in the downloads and in source.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Probably blind, but where in your github does it answer the question about nVidia and provide a link? and by your downloads are you referring to your blog site and the different blob of kernels? A suggestion would be to provide more of a writeup on which to choose - based on if you're going the manufacturer route or the custom ROM route.
Good work figuring out the locked bootloader and getting around it's restrictions.
pershoot said:
then you wait for someone to produce a boot.img in a 1.2 rom.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Only one person doing that as of now and I'm using the BC version. The updated version with the kernel will be released today
jerdog said:
yeah - but you told the user to create a new boot.img, put it in the rom.zip and flash.... not wait for someone else. And what's the fall-back?
Probably blind, but where in your github does it answer the question about nVidia and provide a link? and by your downloads are you referring to your blog site and the different blob of kernels? A suggestion would be to provide more of a writeup on which to choose - based on if you're going the manufacturer route or the custom ROM route.
Good work figuring out the locked bootloader and getting around it's restrictions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the fallback is you reflash the rom. this is nothing new to the procedure.
this has been this way for weeks in my tree and blog postings. i need not add anything further to the postings. i just renamed the labelling to reflect the current gtab testing confirmation.
And how does staying with a manufacturers regulated bootloader help with people who have decided not to use the crud coming from the manufacturers and instead want to make their gTablet more than it can be? Why are we still thinking we have to follow the manufacturer like sheep and not break away and become more?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Let's be honest here, not every owner of a Gtablet is a developer that wants to unlock the pandora's box of great things that this thing is capable of. Some of us just (to be honest once more) wanted the cheapest alternative to the iPad that we could find. I use iPad, because it IS the industry standard...we wouldn't need terms like "iPad killer" if it wasn't what people strive to be or surpass, right?
in my opinion, the 1.1 based roms available right now do what you say we want, make it more than it can be. It takes the crud from the manufacturer and improves on it. Heck, some people actually like the crud from the manufacturer, but just utilize the market fix, to have access to more apps. I would say that most of the people that own a Gtablet flashed 1 rom, and still use it to this day, without messing with their Gtablet, for fear of breaking something (yea, that would be me) I'm perfectly happy with Vegan 5.1.1, and have no intentions of changing until there is an OFFICIAL Nvidea hardware supported rom, that allows for hardware acceleration. Kernel tweaks etc. are fine, and I'm running Clemsyns right now, but NVidea has stated that it will not support Harmony unless requested by a manufacturer. If we need their crud to get the drivers, then so be it...but we do need their crud, first. If NI is actually doing what VS can't, or doesn't want to do, then so be it, I'll take it. But, regardless, if the bootloaders are changing, and all new updates are going to be using that new format, then why not change with the times?
I can understand that the people sorking on 1.1 roms are feeling a bit jaded, since they are still working very hard on all of their 1.1 roms. I do sympathize with them, since it does appear that 1.1 is becoming a thing of the past.
I believe that Robeet's initial point was that there would be new Gtablets that will possibly be shipped with the 1.2 bootloader. Had those people come here and flashed a 1.1 Rom, not knowing the difference, they might be a bit upset with the results. 1.2 Roms needed to be made, just for the people that have the new bootloader. Me, personally, as I've said, I'll be sticking with my 1.1 Rom just the way it is right now until there is a huge significant change that will make me update to 1.2, and flash a new rom...but it must be stable, everything working, hardware accelerated, with kernels that work...might be a while before I switch from Vegan 5.1.1.
Regards,
Todd
pershoot said:
the fallback is you reflash the rom. this is nothing new to the procedure.
this has been this way for weeks in my tree and blog postings. i need not add anything further to the postings. i just renamed the labelling to reflect the current gtab testing confirmation.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
https://github.com/pershoot/gtab-26...nvrm/core/common/nvrm_clocks_limits_private.h
https://github.com/pershoot/gtab-26...nvrm/core/common/nvrm_clocks_limits_private.h
https://github.com/pershoot/gtab-2632/commit/b957d369741cf432146405a956cbc578fd201c80
http://nv-tegra.nvidia.com/gitweb/?...ff;h=7c97a1a4ebdff710907f9361cc05c1459cdeb510
pershoot said:
https://github.com/pershoot/gtab-26...nvrm/core/common/nvrm_clocks_limits_private.h
https://github.com/pershoot/gtab-26...nvrm/core/common/nvrm_clocks_limits_private.h
https://github.com/pershoot/gtab-2632/commit/b957d369741cf432146405a956cbc578fd201c80
http://nv-tegra.nvidia.com/gitweb/?...ff;h=7c97a1a4ebdff710907f9361cc05c1459cdeb510
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
excellent - thanks pershoot.
Related
So after seeing many things that is said with the D2 I thought I should write a post like this. This is just to clear up confusion so users can have the knowledge to use in the future.
Every ROM for the D2 is AOSP
I have seen this said many times and it bugs me that people think that all ROMs are AOSP. As of now, there are actually only a few AOSP ROMs for the D2, cvpcs' Tanzanite/Obsidian, Cobalt, and blackdroid's Ultimate Droid. Other ROMs like rubiX, Liberty, ApeX, and Fission are basically Motorola ROMs with the blur applications replaced with AOSP applications. Now this does not actually make it AOSP. It has features from AOSP, but there is much more to it than the applications. These blur-based ROMs actually have other AOSP-like features, such as lock screen music controls and a few others. Now that also doesn't make it AOSP, those are just a few features that were originally modifications to AOSP to add more functionality to a ROM. That doesn't mean these ROMs are bad in any way. They are actually very good. The only downfall of them is the fact that they are limited to what can be done.
There can't be AOSP ROMs without a custom kernel.
Another statement I have been told or have seen several times. It is considered AOSP if it comes from Google's source. A kernel won't affect the fact that it was built from source. Although it would be ideal for a custom kernel with AOSP, it isn't needed.
A custom kernel is needed.
This is another incorrect statement. It would be nice to replace the kernel, but it isn't needed. The kernel that is provided to us from Motorola includes basically everything the end user would need. Also there is overclocking(although it isn't the easiest implementation) by adding a temporary module to the kernel that is erased after the phone is powered off.
Gingerbread won't come to the D2 until Motorola releases a new kernel with their Gingerbread update.
Incorrect. What the original concern was that Gingerbread would not boot with a .32 kernel(the kernel the D2 has.) and that it needs a .35 kernel. This was later proven wrong with D1. The D1 has been running Gingerbread for a bit now with a .32 kernel. Now I know people will say it is is a different kernel or something along those lines, but that doesn't matter. Gingerbread will boot on it without needing to replace the current kernel.
Fantastic post. Very clear, informative and I learnt more in the 2 minutes reading your post than the hours I've spent reading other threads.
Top stuff.
"Most truths were once deemed blasphemy"
Whats taking so long for Gingerbread then?!
Nice write up, very informative.
Matt, can you check out the MIUI thread in D2 development? Another developer and I are working on the port but we need someone with really good D2 experience to look over the rom and tell us why it gets stuck on the moto logo each time, we would really appreciate it if you could check it out for us.
Thanks,
ljbaumer
P.S. nice post it's really clear and will help out noobs.
ljbaumer said:
Matt, can you check out the MIUI thread in D2 development? Another developer and I are working on the port but we need someone with really good D2 experience to look over the rom and tell us why it gets stuck on the moto logo each time, we would really appreciate it if you could check it out for us.
Thanks,
ljbaumer
P.S. nice post it's really clear and will help out noobs.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Matt I would have to ask nicely along with ljbaumer, if you wouldnt mind taking a look at the rom dev section for the MIUI D2 rom!
I know you lost your D2 and no longer have it but anything could help them w/ progress
Would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!
Someone should sticky this thread cause it is really useful information
Gingerbread won't come to the D2 until Motorola releases a new kernel with their Gingerbread update.
Incorrect. What the original concern was that Gingerbread would not boot with a .32 kernel(the kernel the D2 has.) and that it needs a .35 kernel. This was later proven wrong with D1. The D1 has been running Gingerbread for a bit now with a .32 kernel. Now I know people will say it is is a different kernel or something along those lines, but that doesn't matter. Gingerbread will boot on it without needing to replace the current kernel.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is now irrelevant, take a quick jaunt over to MDW where P3Droid has released full stock moto gingerbread builds for both D2 and DX in update.zip formats (new blur builds). Only catch with them at this time is that no one has figured out how to root them yet, but you can restore back with a previous SBF.
What differences could be expected if GB were to be paired with a .35 kernel rather than the .32 kernel of the current Moto GB leak?
bladearronwey said:
This is now irrelevant, take a quick jaunt over to MDW where P3Droid has released full stock moto gingerbread builds for both D2 and DX in update.zip formats (new blur builds). Only catch with them at this time is that no one has figured out how to root them yet, but you can restore back with a previous SBF.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm pretty sure they've rooted the GB builds... I had superuser access and could boot to recovery and everything. You do have to SBF back to them though, I learned that the hard way.
I am running the rooted Gb and loving it. I would love to see a cm7 version for the Droid 2
Sent from my DROID2 using XDA App
DX is supposedly getting the GB OTA, so the D2 should be next and soon!
Sorry if this has been asked, but I checked a lit of the q&a but is there any hope or any developers working on ICS for us? And because I don't know much why is it hard to port to the sgs 4g?
Sent from my SGH-T959V using XDA App
An entire kernel needs to be built from practically scratch... Its a tonnnn of work. And our GB source JUST came out...
Sent from my SGH-T959V
OK sorry, like I said I don't know much and just was curious. Thank you for the info tho
Sent from my SGH-T959V using XDA App
tehgyb said:
An entire kernel needs to be built from practically scratch... Its a tonnnn of work. And our GB source JUST came out...
Sent from my SGH-T959V
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Really? I know some (almost all except the very newest ones) of the Motorola phones have completely locked boot loaders which prohibit any unauthorized kernel from being loaded. Take for example, the Milestone and the Milestone xt720- they were forced (figuratively speaking) to build roms for Froyo and Gingerbread off of the same, crappy kernel that was released with Eclair. They have done a lot, it's far from stable. Which surprises me considering how bad the phone was, how few people got it, and the general negative attitude that tends to flow through Xda.
I don't know much about it- for example, once the kernel is built for gingerbread, does a new one need to be built, or can that kernel be repurposed?
How about building a Gingerbread Kernel ( CM7 based )
Now that they have finally released a Gingerbread source for the 4GS, It would be nice to have a CM7 build. I know the Devs are busy with ICS, or other products, but if one would be willing to work with me, I'd be willing to make a jab at it. I can currrently build the released kernel, but something is missing that I can not get the zimage to successfully load. It is also smaller in size. The only referenced web discussion I could find was for the I9003 series and there are files mentioned that are not part of the 4G. Any help would be appreciated.
mccabet said:
Now that they have finally released a Gingerbread source for the 4GS, It would be nice to have a CM7 build. I know the Devs are busy with ICS, or other products, but if one would be willing to work with me, I'd be willing to make a jab at it. I can currrently build the released kernel, but something is missing that I can not get the zimage to successfully load. It is also smaller in size. The only referenced web discussion I could find was for the I9003 series and there are files mentioned that are not part of the 4G. Any help would be appreciated.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh trust me, devs are looking at cm7. I know I am, like its a big New York steak!
But its going to be a while, unless you can employee me to work on it. Otherwise... Gotta pay the bills before I have fun.
Sent from my SGH-T959V using xda premium
I know that and realize other priorities make everyones time valuable. I am trying to get up to speed and just need a little bit of help getting the base kernel to build. I have successfully built the CM7 in the past for the captivate, but this is the first time for an raw, untouch source release from samsung.
Thanks for your input.
Also, just to note. There are multiple kernel devs here.
Still waiting for drhonk to release some Bali goodness.
My kernel has a different goal and approach from drhonk's. Search the op of my kernel thread for 'plan'.
As usual, all code is GPL and is available on github (see my signature), so if you want to learn or help out, start with the source.
Sent from my SGH-T959V using xda premium
finch8423 said:
Really? I know some (almost all except the very newest ones) of the Motorola phones have completely locked boot loaders which prohibit any unauthorized kernel from being loaded. Take for example, the Milestone and the Milestone xt720- they were forced (figuratively speaking) to build roms for Froyo and Gingerbread off of the same, crappy kernel that was released with Eclair. They have done a lot, it's far from stable. Which surprises me considering how bad the phone was, how few people got it, and the general negative attitude that tends to flow through Xda.
I don't know much about it- for example, once the kernel is built for gingerbread, does a new one need to be built, or can that kernel be repurposed?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you seem to be forgetting that every device except for the SGS1 series takes a boot.img this makes it a lot easier to do things because of the partition layout. sgs1 series uses zImage with initramfs, and has a BML/RFS file system. Not ext4, mtd, yaffs2, ext3...but a **** file system.
krylon360 said:
you seem to be forgetting that every device except for the SGS1 series takes a boot.img this makes it a lot easier to do things because of the partition layout. sgs1 series uses zImage with initramfs, and has a BML/RFS file system. Not ext4, mtd, yaffs2, ext3...but a **** file system.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea, don't sweat this quite yet, Krylon360
I say we work on the cwm that converts to ext4 like epic4g, like you'd suggested in irc. I already have some code and tests in place to convert to mtd. It's just not in any kind of stable/usable/releasable form yet. It's still early code.
When (hopefully soon) I get time, and hopefully an email back from chipworks about some info I need, I'm going to get u-boot rolling. It's hard for me to explain all the benefits of this now, but some snippets:
fastboot mode (say, flash an mtd partition like: fastboot flash <partition name> <file>)
android usb gadget support (adbd) in u-boot (say to have early console access at the bootloader), and plenty of other goodies.
many other things I just don't have time to list, on top of the fact that we can now control the bootloader...
doing the auto conversion is cake. it's just a bit inside init.rc that tells it to run a script in /sbin, that script is just a quick conversion to ext4. as long as /system, /data, and /cache have the ext4 mounting bit in init.rc, and the ext4.ko is in /lib/modules, it should would just fine.
I'll get the script while Im at work tomorrow.
Krylon360,
you mentioned the initramfs being combined with the zimage. Can you shed some light on how this is done?
bhundven,
Thank you for your help. I will be checking out your source to look over and looking at your forum. Thanks Again!
I know everyone has prob said this. But I'm willing to test betas and such for the sgs4g. Let me know if I can. Thanks
Sent from my SGH-T959V using XDA App
I know that this is not a developmental release or a custom built ROM but I thought the community might like to see this.....AT&T officially releases GB for our Captivates!
http://www.samsung.com/us/support/SupportOwnersFAQPopup.do?faq_id=FAQ00024051&fm_seq=24219
Unfortunately, the notice indicates it is KK4, but the source has also been posted at http://opensource.samsung.com. Let the fun begin....again.
disappointed about AT&T and SAMSUNG
gibson3659 said:
Unfortunately, the notice indicates it is KK4, but the source has also been posted at http://opensource.samsung.com. Let the fun begin....again.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The source has been out for a while now...I'm thinking a few weeks, at least.
Has anyone checked to see whether this KK4 is the same as what was leaked two months ago - there's always the possibility of slipstreamed changes without reversioning, especially since there are definite bugs that remain in the leaked version, e.g., the kernel crashes when too many apps are are installed to SD.
At a minimum, given that the linked instructions describe this as a full wipe, the ROM is packaged differently than the previous leaks.
LOL. couldn't have come at a better time! /sarcasm
Anyone got an alternate mirror in the event the Kies Mini upgrade fails for me, as it did previously when I tried to upgrade to Froyo? It would be a nice backup in the event I need to go back to stock (assuming, although I probably shouldn't, that in the two months since KK4 leaked, something had to get updated.
God do I miss bln.
RKight said:
The source has been out for a while now...I'm thinking a few weeks, at least.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then is there anyone working on a custom kernel based on KK4? If it has been out for a few weeks, I would have expected a thread or 2 by now with BLN and voodoo sound. Developer interest seems to be waning for our cappy's.
Thread moved
satans spawn1972 said:
I know that this is not a developmental release or a custom built ROM but I thought the community might like to see this.....AT&T officially releases GB for our Captivates!
http://www.samsung.com/us/support/SupportOwnersFAQPopup.do?faq_id=FAQ00024051&fm_seq=24219
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you know something isn't development, don't post it there!
reinbeau said:
If you know something isn't development, don't post it there!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I knew that that my post wasn't dev (as I stated in my own post) but I posted it there so the devs could see the "Official" release was out. That way they could use it as the source to their ROMs for KK4.
Sorry for the infraction.................
satans spawn1972 said:
I knew that that my post wasn't dev (as I stated in my own post) but I posted it there so the devs could see the "Official" release was out. That way they could use it as the source to their ROMs for KK4.
Sorry for the infraction.................
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just a warning This is all over, so I'm sure they all know about it. Hopefully it'll bring some stability to our Captivate ROMs (they won't have to be based on I9000 now, although I have no idea what else the I9000 functionality brings). I am not a developer, just an educated user.
gibson3659 said:
Then is there anyone working on a custom kernel based on KK4? If it has been out for a few weeks, I would have expected a thread or 2 by now with BLN and voodoo sound. Developer interest seems to be waning for our cappy's.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is the same Rom/Kernel developers have been working on for the last month, so yes there is a lot of custom kernel, but none with BLN or voodoo color due to lack of source for it.
popfan said:
This is the same Rom/Kernel developers have been working on for the last month, so yes there is a lot of custom kernel, but none with BLN or voodoo color due to lack of source for it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Has anyone confirmed that this is in fact the same code that was leaked back in November? Just because it is named the same, it doesn't mean it will be exactly the same.
stoobie-doo said:
Has anyone confirmed that this is in fact the same code that was leaked back in November? Just because it is named the same, it doesn't mean it will be exactly the same.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have a hard time believing ATT would release such an unstable release. It just can't be the same KK4 leaked back in November. It is inconcievable.
Upgraded my cappy without a hitch.. Unfortunately, it was then powered off and put back in my Galaxy SII box (now my backup phone)
Time_Zone said:
I have a hard time believing ATT would release such an unstable release. It just can't be the same KK4 leaked back in November. It is inconcievable.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Inconcievable? I think this applies...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
newbie here, How do you root your phone again now?
z450 said:
newbie here, How do you root your phone again now?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Assuming this is the same as the leak; go to the dev KK4 thread and download the fugu kernel and the KK4 kernel
Flash fugu via Odin let it start and bootloop; pull battery; flash KK4 kernel
Or Click this...[APP]SuperOneClick
Hi,
Nvidia has just release binary and tools to build ICS ROM for Tegar2 plateforme...
http://developer.nvidia.com/tegra-resources
Bye
looks like (a lot of) the stuff needed to get our own built AOSP image running properly on the TF101.
Who knows, we might see a proper ICS rom before Asus releases their own .
I cant wait to see a ics-rom on my TF101!
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium
Ohhhh... Nice.... I'm new around here does the transformer have a dev that build aosp roms from source (not kanged)
That page has been around forever and doesn't have what is necessary to get AOSP on pretty much anything.
There's been a few accounts posting that all around the same time frame the last few days all over the Tegra based device forums.....hmmmmmm.
thanks for this!reading ics 3ad it seems that it isn't so usefull...(http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=21768082&postcount=361)what are you think about that?
They posted an ICS device image for ventana. We can pull the required binaries from there as a starting point rather than trying to get ICS to work with the binaries pulled from honeycomb.
I'm downloading it now.
Thanks for the post!
daoist said:
They posted an ICS device image for ventana. We can pull the required binaries from there as a starting point rather than trying to get ICS to work with the binaries pulled from honeycomb.
I'm downloading it now.
Thanks for the post!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
...we already have binaries that work with ICS, I've had builds in the public with working (and very smooth) graphics for weeks. If these ones are comparable then it'll be a nice source to pull them from, build a ROM without having to pull from a device etc. but they don't make anything any easier as you suggest.
paulburton said:
...we already have binaries that work with ICS, I've had builds in the public with working (and very smooth) graphics for weeks. If these ones are comparable then it'll be a nice source to pull them from, build a ROM without having to pull from a device etc. but they don't make anything any easier as you suggest.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But isn't there a new kernel in there or something to help with the (deep) sleep problems? Or is the reference board too diferent from our TF101 board?
It's all quite helpful. Cribbing stuff from a working compile is going to be easier than doing it from scratch.
dipje said:
But isn't there a new kernel in there or something to help with the (deep) sleep problems? Or is the reference board too diferent from our TF101 board?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's a kernel binary, sure. It won't run on the TF101 though because as you mention it's not the same board. Ok, maybe it would run, but if it does then it'll have all the wrong peripheral setup etc. The source for the kernel is (presumably) the same nvidia source that's been available for a while and is the basis of the TF101 kernel I've been working on, so it shouldn't be significantly different.
daoist said:
It's all quite helpful. Cribbing stuff from a working compile is going to be easier than doing it from scratch.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
'Cribbing' what exactly? I'm not sure what you think you can usefully take from this.
paulburton said:
There's a kernel binary, sure. It won't run on the TF101 though because as you mention it's not the same board. Ok, maybe it would run, but if it does then it'll have all the wrong peripheral setup etc. The source for the kernel is (presumably) the same nvidia source that's been available for a while and is the basis of the TF101 kernel I've been working on, so it shouldn't be significantly different.
'Cribbing' what exactly? I'm not sure what you think you can usefully take from this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
All the proprietary binaries/configs/etc. The sort of stuff we'd pull via extract-files.sh. Right now you've done an excellent job building it up from what we had in honeycomb. Now we have known-good files from ICS.
daoist said:
All the proprietary binaries/configs/etc. The sort of stuff we'd pull via extract-files.sh. Right now you've done an excellent job building it up from what we had in honeycomb. Now we have known-good files from ICS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, no. The _only_ things that I intend to use binaries for are the graphics drivers and bluetooth firmware. Bluetooth firmware doesn't care at all which version of android you're running, so we can ignore that. Which just leaves graphics drivers, which are already taken from an ICS ROM (fortunately the TF101 isn't the only tegra 2 tablet!).
This might be a noob question, but I want to know that since our bootloader is locked, how we are able to port Cynaogenmod and other ROMs like Paranoid Android to Atrix 2? Recently official AOSP ROM was released for Moto RAZR which also has a locked bootloader. So why we can't have an official CM for Atrix 2?
What difference is there between a CM port and an official CM for unlocked bootloader device ?
Just some noob questions which came in my mind. Please clarify. Sorry for a silly question.
androiddecoded said:
This might be a noob question, but I want to know that since our bootloader is locked, how we are able to port Cynaogenmod and other ROMs like Paranoid Android to Atrix 2? Recently official AOSP ROM was released for Moto RAZR which also has a locked bootloader. So why we can't have an official CM for Atrix 2?
What difference is there between a CM port and an official CM for unlocked bootloader device ?
Just some noob questions which came in my mind. Please clarify. Sorry for a silly question.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It all surrounds around the kernel. Unlocked bootloader devices can run "custom" compiled kernels, and CM and the other "custom" non-stock based roms all have their own kernels too.
The reason that we can run "unofficial" versions is because your devs (me included), have to compile the ROM around the "stock" kernel, so that it can be installed right along side the stock kernel, and run without issue. All of the AOSPA, and PA, and such are the same exact way.
Anything that can be done on the Razr can pretty much be done on this phone. The thing is that your dev team is much smaller on the A2 as it was not a very popular device, so it takes longer if ever to get something since the devs make the choice to work on a specific ROM or not.
Also the "official" CM compiles are done by the cyanogen mod team themselves and they do all the coding and have an auto compile server to get the versions out to the public, so again it is up to the developers there to decide which phones they want to support. Again though if you look all the "official" build devices ALL have unlocked bootloaders in some form or fashion, so that the "custom" compiled kernel will install with out issue.
Actually, it looks like Hashcode and dhacker recently got the RAZR included in the "official" CM nightlies... http://wiki.cyanogenmod.org/w/Spyder_Info
So, if something stable enough is worked out for the A2 (i.e. kexec), then we could possibly see an "official" edison of some sort at some point... in theory.
For now, I'll be happy with stable "unofficial" builds..
alteredlikeness said:
Actually, it looks like Hashcode and dhacker recently got the RAZR included in the "official" CM nightlies... http://wiki.cyanogenmod.org/w/Spyder_Info
So, if something stable enough is worked out for the A2 (i.e. kexec), then we could possibly see an "official" edison of some sort at some point... in theory.
For now, I'll be happy with stable "unofficial" builds..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is still not considered "official" cyanogen builds.....
If it is not listed here, then it is not 100% official:
http://get.cm
It is lets say.... an unofficial, "official" build, though. LOL
jimbridgman said:
That is still not considered "official" cyanogen builds.....
If it is not listed here, then it is not 100% official:
http://get.cm
It is lets say.... an unofficial, "official" build, though. LOL
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Um, Jim.. spyder and umts_spyder are both listed there
Still, I think Hashcode and dhacker have the status/connections to get it dubbed "official"..
alteredlikeness said:
Um, Jim.. spyder and umts_spyder are both listed there
Still, I think Hashcode and dhacker have the status/connections to get it dubbed "official"..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
so do I.... Don't forget who is on the cm coding team....
I did some looking internally at CM and found that these are semi-official, right now, with a big but, the kexec I am told is what is keeping it with the semi status...
They are looking into changing that for kexec based compiles, so.... Hopefully, that happens.
jimbridgman said:
It all surrounds around the kernel. Unlocked bootloader devices can run "custom" compiled kernels, and CM and the other "custom" non-stock based roms all have their own kernels too.
The reason that we can run "unofficial" versions is because your devs (me included), have to compile the ROM around the "stock" kernel, so that it can be installed right along side the stock kernel, and run without issue. All of the AOSPA, and PA, and such are the same exact way.
Anything that can be done on the Razr can pretty much be done on this phone. The thing is that your dev team is much smaller on the A2 as it was not a very popular device, so it takes longer if ever to get something since the devs make the choice to work on a specific ROM or not.
Also the "official" CM compiles are done by the cyanogen mod team themselves and they do all the coding and have an auto compile server to get the versions out to the public, so again it is up to the developers there to decide which phones they want to support. Again though if you look all the "official" build devices ALL have unlocked bootloaders in some form or fashion, so that the "custom" compiled kernel will install with out issue.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the reply. I wish I could also develop something for Atrix 2. But I am not familiar with the development. How is it done? and where do you test it and all other things? Is there some starting tutorial there for it? Or maybe some place from where you all guys started learning the developement?
androiddecoded said:
Thanks for the reply. I wish I could also develop something for Atrix 2. But I am not familiar with the development. How is it done? and where do you test it and all other things? Is there some starting tutorial there for it? Or maybe some place from where you all guys started learning the developement?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would start with my thread for all the tools you need.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1404442
Then you can start with taking a shot at a stock based ROM, since they really are the easiest place to start. You will need some form of linux ubuntu is really the most supported distro for android dev work, so that is a good start. This can be a VM to start out with, you can use a free VM tool like virtual box, if you want to just to give it a try, but I will tell you a dual boot works much better, and I will be honest I have a machine that just uses ubuntu and does not run windows at all. I have a wine install for things like netflix and such, but other than that.... no windows. That is just me though.
The key is the android kitchen... and that ONLY runs on linux, that where you build your ROM at. There are guys like rdavisct, who do it on windows, but even he would tell you how much of a PIA it was for him, and he did eventually go to ubuntu with my help.
After that you can start to look at compiling roms like CM, aospa, and the like.
jimbridgman said:
I would start with my thread for all the tools you need.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1404442
Then you can start with taking a shot at a stock based ROM, since they really are the easiest place to start. You will need some form of linux ubuntu is really the most supported distro for android dev work, so that is a good start. This can be a VM to start out with, you can use a free VM tool like virtual box, if you want to just to give it a try, but I will tell you a dual boot works much better, and I will be honest I have a machine that just uses ubuntu and does not run windows at all. I have a wine install for things like netflix and such, but other than that.... no windows. That is just me though.
The key is the android kitchen... and that ONLY runs on linux, that where you build your ROM at. There are guys like rdavisct, who do it on windows, but even he would tell you how much of a PIA it was for him, and he did eventually go to ubuntu with my help.
After that you can start to look at compiling roms like CM, aospa, and the like.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't want to be the antagonist here , but I did everything in Windows until I started my attempts at building from source.
Dsixda's kitchen works fine in Windows with Cygwin. I started off building pseudo-ROMs (or rebuilding the stock ROMs) with the kitchen, and then I eventually just used 7-zip and other tools and did it manually.
I currently use Ubuntu 12.04 64-bit in Virtual Box in Windows on my laptop to compile from source. But I did just install 12.10 fully on my old PC... 32-bit unfortunately.. I need to upgrade that comp, or find a work-around to build in 32-bit.. Anyhow, it runs much nicer than windows xp did.
Sent from my paranoid phone's mind
jimbridgman said:
I would start with my thread for all the tools you need.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1404442
Then you can start with taking a shot at a stock based ROM, since they really are the easiest place to start. You will need some form of linux ubuntu is really the most supported distro for android dev work, so that is a good start. This can be a VM to start out with, you can use a free VM tool like virtual box, if you want to just to give it a try, but I will tell you a dual boot works much better, and I will be honest I have a machine that just uses ubuntu and does not run windows at all. I have a wine install for things like netflix and such, but other than that.... no windows. That is just me though.
The key is the android kitchen... and that ONLY runs on linux, that where you build your ROM at. There are guys like rdavisct, who do it on windows, but even he would tell you how much of a PIA it was for him, and he did eventually go to ubuntu with my help.
After that you can start to look at compiling roms like CM, aospa, and the like.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thats awesome. I have both Red Hat and Ubuntu installed. What about the testing? After compiling do you test it directly on your Atrix 2? I have only one mobile and am afraid to test it directly on it. :crying:
androiddecoded said:
Thats awesome. I have both Red Hat and Ubuntu installed. What about the testing? After compiling do you test it directly on your Atrix 2? I have only one mobile and am afraid to test it directly on it. :crying:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, that is the only way. That is why you have the fxz and rsd lite handy and ready, just in case. 20 min. and you are back up and running. If you are concerned go buy a 10-40 buck "burner" at Walmart and put your sim in it, for while you test. I am lucky that I still have my HTC hero lying around for just that purpose... Every time I bricked my a2 (doing bootloader work), that was my go to backup.
I never needed it while doing ROM work, because the worst that will happen is boot loops/soft brick, it is nearly impossible to hard brick the a2 testing a ROM that does not have a kernel in it.
jimbridgman said:
Yes, that is the only way. That is why you have the fxz and rsd lite handy and ready, just in case. 20 min. and you are back up and running. If you are concerned go buy a 10-40 buck "burner" at Walmart and put your sim in it, for while you test. I am lucky that I still have my HTC hero lying around for just that purpose... Every time I bricked my a2 (doing bootloader work), that was my go to backup.
I never needed it while doing ROM work, because the worst that will happen is boot loops/soft brick, it is nearly impossible to hard brick the a2 testing a ROM that does not have a kernel in it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks sir. Got that
Will try to contribute something if I can. Kudos to our dev team. You guys are doing a great job. Happy to be a part of a great community
jimbridgman said:
Yes, that is the only way. That is why you have the fxz and rsd lite handy and ready, just in case. 20 min. and you are back up and running. If you are concerned go buy a 10-40 buck "burner" at Walmart and put your sim in it, for while you test. I am lucky that I still have my HTC hero lying around for just that purpose... Every time I bricked my a2 (doing bootloader work), that was my go to backup.
I never needed it while doing ROM work, because the worst that will happen is boot loops/soft brick, it is nearly impossible to hard brick the a2 testing a ROM that does not have a kernel in it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I took the Paranoid Android ROM from this page for practice. http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2050705
I extracted it using Android Kitchen, but it says boot.img not found. Do we need to add boot.img from our phone or its not needed since we have a locked bootlader. Or should I take stock Atrix 2 ROM?
androiddecoded said:
I took the Paranoid Android ROM from this page for practice. http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2050705
I extracted it using Android Kitchen, but it says boot.img not found. Do we need to add boot.img from our phone or its not needed since we have a locked bootlader. Or should I take stock Atrix 2 ROM?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok, so you need to let the kitchen create or import a "fake" one, as the kitchen was originally made for like samsung and htc phones and they require one, so the kitchen needs one, it will remove it when it builds the ROM and creates the zip file.
Also make sure you have the edison file, that was listed and where to put it was also listed in my thread on ROM building for the A2. That will help you create a proper updater-script when it builds the ROM, as well as give the proper mapping for our partitions on the A2.
jimbridgman said:
Ok, so you need to let the kitchen create or import a "fake" one, as the kitchen was originally made for like samsung and htc phones and they require one, so the kitchen needs one, it will remove it when it builds the ROM and creates the zip file.
Also make sure you have the edison file, that was listed and where to put it was also listed in my thread on ROM building for the A2. That will help you create a proper updater-script when it builds the ROM, as well as give the proper mapping for our partitions on the A2.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I will do it tomorrow. Really thank you for assisting me.
jimbridgman said:
Ok, so you need to let the kitchen create or import a "fake" one, as the kitchen was originally made for like samsung and htc phones and they require one, so the kitchen needs one, it will remove it when it builds the ROM and creates the zip file.
Also make sure you have the edison file, that was listed and where to put it was also listed in my thread on ROM building for the A2. That will help you create a proper updater-script when it builds the ROM, as well as give the proper mapping for our partitions on the A2.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
One more doubt. I am building ROM from already built ROM i.e. the zip is already compiled, so how can I fix bugs like camera bugs and other things because they are already compiled i.e. in the form of apk.So should I use APK tool which is used to decompile the apk? Is there any difference while creating a ROM from source and creating it from already compiled zips.?? Silly question but I want to clear all these doubts
I downloaded the leaked 4.1 for Atrix 2. But I can't see the same folder format in that like system, META-INF? Why is that difference
androiddecoded said:
One more doubt. I am building ROM from already built ROM i.e. the zip is already compiled, so how can I fix bugs like camera bugs and other things because they are already compiled i.e. in the form of apk.So should I use APK tool which is used to decompile the apk? Is there any difference while creating a ROM from source and creating it from already compiled zips.?? Silly question but I want to clear all these doubts
I downloaded the leaked 4.1 for Atrix 2. But I can't see the same folder format in that like system, META-INF? Why is that difference
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The issues for the camera are NOT in the apk itself, they are in the vendor libraries, the issue is that when vendor libraries are introduced for certai n things the ROM does not boot.
The best bet until you get better at C code and compiling ROMS, I would not mess with that. You can however build a working CM10.1 with a working camera by using a camera apk from the market, like 360 camera, and there are a few others, you can just drop that into /system/app and build the ROM and it should work for you.
Once you complie CM there is not much you can fix like that, rdavisct and I were doing just that until Wang released his source for the required A2 files (we did find a lot of issues and fix them, but they were actual missing libs and similar back then., It really is a lost cause to use the zip to "fix" "real compiled in bugs, because anything you do like that will not have the needed pieces compiled around it, some libraries will not work right since others that are from CM were not compiled around the ones from the phone, and think that they are part of the CM code, and are not "includes" in the compile.
You can however do a lot of customizing to the ROM to fit YOUR needs, but do not expect to fix any issues this way. Like I mentioned the camera is an easy one, you then just go to settings tell it your "default" camera app is the 360 camera, not the stock CM one.
jimbridgman said:
The issues for the camera are NOT in the apk itself, they are in the vendor libraries, the issue is that when vendor libraries are introduced for certai n things the ROM does not boot.
The best bet until you get better at C code and compiling ROMS, I would not mess with that. You can however build a working CM10.1 with a working camera by using a camera apk from the market, like 360 camera, and there are a few others, you can just drop that into /system/app and build the ROM and it should work for you.
Once you complie CM there is not much you can fix like that, rdavisct and I were doing just that until Wang released his source for the required A2 files (we did find a lot of issues and fix them, but they were actual missing libs and similar back then., It really is a lost cause to use the zip to "fix" "real compiled in bugs, because anything you do like that will not have the needed pieces compiled around it, some libraries will not work right since others that are from CM were not compiled around the ones from the phone, and think that they are part of the CM code, and are not "includes" in the compile.
You can however do a lot of customizing to the ROM to fit YOUR needs, but do not expect to fix any issues this way. Like I mentioned the camera is an easy one, you then just go to settings tell it your "default" camera app is the 360 camera, not the stock CM one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh, ok. So can I try removing Moto Homescreen app and setting Nova Launcher as default?
And why is the difference between files between Moto 4.1 leak and Paranoid Android ROM. The regular mapping of folder is not there like META-inf , /system etc..
EDIT: I think I got it. Leaked Moto 4.1 is fastboot file and PA is flashable zip. I think I am right. Can I get the zip for Moto 4.1 leak?
4.1 leak is not a flashable zip.
The meta-inf folder items are for zips that are flashed in recovery.
And, not to dissuade you from jumping in to modding/dev'ing, but you may want to take things a bit slower... Start small.. And read/research a lot.
Sent from my paranoid phone's mind
androiddecoded said:
Oh, ok. So can I try removing Moto Homescreen app and setting Nova Launcher as default?
And why is the difference between files between Moto 4.1 leak and Paranoid Android ROM. The regular mapping of folder is not there like META-inf , /system etc..
EDIT: I think I got it. Leaked Moto 4.1 is fastboot file and PA is flashable zip. I think I am right. Can I get the zip for Moto 4.1 leak?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, there is not a flashable "zip" for the Moto 4.1 leak, you will have to build that on your own with the Rom kitchen, since it is an FXZ, it will not have those flashable parts. The kitchen is very easy to use, it is menu driven and only takes about 30 min to an hour to do what it seems you want to do.
You can replace the launcher from within a flashable zip, but you might have issues, because the MOTO blur junk that is in their ROMS DEPENDS on it, if you do NOT leave it (moto blur launcher) in /system, then a number of things will not work that depend on the moto launcher (they are embedded in the xml files in the apks, and need to be edited to NOT look for the moto laucher), I think it is more trouble than it is worth, personally.
I would throw Apex in there if that is what you want, and then on first boot select it as your default launcher and be done with it, less issues and mess, other than the old moto launcher taking space in /system. BY the way ANYTHING that you put in /system is not really 100% upgrade-able by the market app, so like lets say you put apex in /system, then the market can not update the version in /system, since it is read only, and it will either fail the update, or try to put the newer updated files /data, so you will have things in two places for your 3rd party launcher. It is MUCH better to put any APKS that would come from the market into /data so they can get updates with out any odd issues, just a heads up...
--EDIT--
As alteredlikeness said about the same time I was posting, start a little smaller, and do a bunch of learning, because from what I see you asking about and posting in here, you have a good bit of learning to do, about how the directory structure and things are and work in android, as well as some ROM building basics.