Related
So looking through the development subforum I noticed that there's a lot of roms there that will probably not work completely for the NS4G. Should there be a separate development subforum for the NS4g? This would make it easier to determine at a glance if the rom is compatible with the phone. It may at the very least help reduce questions from people new to rooting.
(Update) I'd like to make it clear that this thread is based on the assumption that NS roms do not work on NS4G phones. This has been reported on some roms(mainly, data doesn't work). If they end up being compatible with a minor tweak or something, then by all means discard this. (/update)
+1.
would also help to alleviate the sprint vs. t-mobile/cdma vs. gsm arguments that i'm starting to sense...
That's true...and those flamewars can be quite annoying. I'm sure people would appreciate not having to deal with those as often.
bump +1million.
Bump + 2,000,000
StormCell said:
Bump + 2,000,000
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
that's a pretty legit bump
we for sure need this now that we know the gsm roms may not work.
+1 for adding a CDMA development area so that things will remain less cluttered
OP should add a poll or make another post with a poll so people can vote
And remove [Q] from title it will only get your thread moved to q/a section
Sent from my Nexus S using XDA App
BrianDigital said:
+1 for adding a CDMA development area so that things will remain less cluttered
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1 for this +1 bc i'm getting a headache trying to differentiate threads and posts through this clutter
fixxxer2008 said:
we for sure need this now that we know the gsm roms may not work.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not so sure that is 100% certain yet.
Support for the Nexus 4G was just added into AOSP Gingerbread branch in 2.3.4. So far none of the custom ROMs like CyanogenMod or MIUI have fully merged 2.3.4 into their code base.
There is a chance we will see "universal" ROMs that will work.
Remember, there were three Nexus S devices even before the 4G: i9020T, i9020A, and i9023. And while those are all "GSM" phones, the radios do not work on each other's 3G networks.
I agree if there is danger of easily flashing something by mistake that will brick your phone, make them separate. And when I was first planning on getting a Nexus, I wanted the same thing. But the truth is, now that I've had a Nexus for almost a month, it would suck to have all the variants split up. The ideal solution would be to all stick together to keep the community of developers larger and to have ROMs and kernels that are easily compatible or at least easily compiled for multiple devices (then each dev thread could just link to each version).
Maybe that won't work, but so far, the 4G "dev" section would have a total of like two threads in it. So why not just wait and see what happens?
rougegoat said:
So looking through the development subforum I noticed that there's a lot of roms there that will probably not work completely for the NS4G. Should there be a separate development subforum for the NS4g? This would make it easier to determine at a glance if the rom is compatible with the phone. It may at the very least help reduce questions from people new to rooting.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
this might be true, we may need a separate (sub)forum for the NS4G. this phone is still very new and the developers haven't completely dissected the phones software differences yet. Netarchy has already put out a kernel that is compatible for both phones, who's to say that once the differences get sorted out that a rom can't be universal. it would be nice to have one big NS development scene instead of splitting it in two.
just my two cents
I have to agree with joeB on that one
All, just FTR I started this after seeing several ROMs reported as not working with the NS4G. This is assuming that there is some reason why the two aren't completely compatible. If they are, then by all means we should keep the layout the same as it is. I literally just got mine so I haven't had a chance to root or test it, so I'm not a good judge of that fact.
I'll update the first post with the suggestions posted in previous comments.
Not sure if it's been mentioned, but there's separate boards for the gsm hero/ cdma hero :/ seems like we need different forums
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA Premium App
I agree, all these NS4G'ers walking in like they own the place, laying down their threads and disrupting the nice order of things!
matt2053 said:
I'm not so sure that is 100% certain yet.
Support for the Nexus 4G was just added into AOSP Gingerbread branch in 2.3.4. So far none of the custom ROMs like CyanogenMod or MIUI have fully merged 2.3.4 into their code base.
There is a chance we will see "universal" ROMs that will work.
Remember, there were three Nexus S devices even before the 4G: i9020T, i9020A, and i9023. And while those are all "GSM" phones, the radios do not work on each other's 3G networks.
I agree if there is danger of easily flashing something by mistake that will brick your phone, make them separate. And when I was first planning on getting a Nexus, I wanted the same thing. But the truth is, now that I've had a Nexus for almost a month, it would suck to have all the variants split up. The ideal solution would be to all stick together to keep the community of developers larger and to have ROMs and kernels that are easily compatible or at least easily compiled for multiple devices (then each dev thread could just link to each version).
Maybe that won't work, but so far, the 4G "dev" section would have a total of like two threads in it. So why not just wait and see what happens?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
SuperAosp 8.0 is a complete 2.3.4 custom rom.
We need a NS4G user to extract their radio kernel (D720SPRKD8) So it can be tried out using a custom rom that is fully 2.3.4 such as SuperAosp 8.0
Here is the thread that it needs to be added to:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=975105
Sent from my Nexus S using XDA Premium App
I vote for 2 sub / sub forums i.e.
xda-developers > Samsung Nexus S > Nexus S Development
xda-developers > Samsung Nexus S > Nexus S 4G Development
Keeping everything else under the same hat. The roms will have to be different but not the kernels and the rest should be generally the same.
Yes. Sprint Nexus S 4G needs it's own subforum.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
Maybe instead of creating deeper and deeper branches of a forum that's already way too branched, people and mods could be smart and label things appropriately.
Hi, I have a rooted Evo 4G, with the rooted 2.3.3 rom on it, and I have been looking for a new kernal. I have tried many, and every single one has hindered one vital aspect of the phone (White camera screen, No Sound, ect.) And I have searched for a comprehensive list of all the kernals, but every link I found was dead. All I care about in the kernal, is if everything works just fine, plus, 720p fullhdmi output, and netfilter for the wireless tether. If somone could please send me a link to a good one, That'd be great!
(oh, and I think I know what I'm talking about, but please, correct me if I'm wrong in my post.)
I have tried:
Netarchy toastmod: Camera problem, tried 3-4 versions.
Freedom (idk the rest): No sound, At all!
And I would like to stay on the stock(ish) rooted rom, if at all possible. I have tried CM7 and Fresh, but I keep coming back to the stock(ish) rom.
I don't ever run Sense, so I'm not really familiar with Sense kernels. The two you've tried are compatible (I believe) with what you're running. You need to be sure that the kernel you choose is for Sense and Gingerbread. You also need to know what you're hoping to get from a custom kernel & what features you need - such as cfs or bfs, havs or no havs, etc. This is a great resource with information about kernels: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=894880
It may not be up to date on available kernels, but it will help you understand the terms. Each kernel that you find might have different types, so if you try a bfs kernel and it causes problems then try a cfs. I suggest cfs anyway, unless you're mostly playing games or something. You can try asking in that thread, someone may be able to help you find a good kernel.
Just run through the Evo 4G Development subforum & try out the 2.3 Sense kernels once you know what you're looking for. Of course always make a nandroid backup just in case, and wipe cache and dalvik when you flash. What works well for some might not play well with your phone, so don't get frustrated.
Here's the Evo 4G Development section, just in case: http://forum.xda-developers.com/forumdisplay.php?f=653
Good luck!
Sent from my Evo + MIUI using Tapatalk!
I am getting a little overwhelmed...all these great roms coming out. I see that dman works a lot on porting...and now he has CatyRom. I am trying to get a poll on everyones opinion regarding the best rom for the infuse. Recently got my infuse...day after I got it, I installed UCKK1...now UCKK3 and downloading UCKK4, DarkyRom JVR 10.3 and CatyRom all at the same time.
Decisions...decisions. Help me out guys/gals!
Thanks.
In reality they are are the best roms. It comes down to preferences really. I for example like simple roms, that I can customize to my liking so I use CM7.
Sent from my SGH-I997 using xda premium
I figured it is a matter of preference but I am more interested in functionality and which ROMs are working in full. Themes included would be nice but not necessary. I am running GB 2.6.35.7 and really modded Homescreen.
You can start by picking a category of ROM. There are Froyo and Gingerbread ROM's (and ROM's with ICS framework that have been banned, so you'll need to look elsewhere for those), there are Samsung ROM's and there are AOSP/CM/MIUI ROM's, there are AT&T ROM's and there are non-AT&T ROM's, there are Infuse-based ROM's and there are Galaxy S-based ROM's. Each category of ROM will only work with a matching category of kernel. You should start by learning the differences between these: for example, AT&T Infuse-based ROM's paired with AT&T Infuse-based kernels are the only ones that support MHL/HDMI-out on the Infuse. Samsung ROM's have TouchWiz framework, apps, and out-of-the box support for more media formats than other ROM's (non-TouchWiz ROM's will require 3rd party apps to play the same music and video files). Galaxy S-based ROM's will have the no-sound-on-first-call-after-boot bug. For example, DarkyROM is a Galaxy S-based non-AT&T Samsung Gingerbread ROM, whereas UCKK4 is an Infuse-based AT&T Samsung Gingerbread ROM (which only has HDMI support when paired with the stock UCKK4 kernel).
Just curious why are the ics framework roms so taboo? Esp since we still have no gb support(not to mention att pretty much already killed the phone) from the phone creators I figured you developers are our only hope.
Hardwise aside from low ram how well do yall think ics would run?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using XDA App
I'm no developer, but it has to do with starting from scratch on everything from the kernel up to the framework for ics, whereas with gb there have been several leaks to start off of and tweak. so technically if a developer were to start from scratch, they'd probably use ics. but we don't have any developers that dedicated for infuse, most top developers left the infuse forums months ago.
so asking for a full ics rom from the start-up devs we do have is a little above and beyond, and the experienced devs we do have won't spend that much time on this phone. and devs don't like it very much when someone who doesn't have a deeper understanding of what goes into making a rom just states that they want one.
and ics would run fine on the infuse if developed properly (and especially if officially). Technically the infuse should get ics as per the statement samsung made back in May at google IO about keeping phones sold updated for 18 months or something like that, but doubt that will ever happen.
Timme007 said:
I'm no developer, but it has to do with starting from scratch on everything from the kernel up to the framework for ics, whereas with gb there have been several leaks to start off of and tweak. so technically if a developer were to start from scratch, they'd probably use ics. but we don't have any developers that dedicated for infuse, most top developers left the infuse forums months ago.
so asking for a full ics rom from the start-up devs we do have is a little above and beyond, and the experienced devs we do have won't spend that much time on this phone. and devs don't like it very much when someone who doesn't have a deeper understanding of what goes into making a rom just states that they want one.
and ics would run fine on the infuse if developed properly (and especially if officially). Technically the infuse should get ics as per the statement samsung made back in May at google IO about keeping phones sold updated for 18 months or something like that, but doubt that will ever happen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Since the infuse is now officially supported by Galnet Miui we will see ics one way or the other
So ics frameworks were banned because the moderators don't think the infuse developers have enough experience?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using XDA App
jasonk1229 said:
So ics frameworks were banned because the moderators don't think the infuse developers have enough experience?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, the ICS framework roms i think used kernals where the source had not been released, which is illegal. I have a terrible memory, but I think that's why, but correct me if I'm wrong
I believe you are correct.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using XDA App
mcmb03 said:
No, the ICS framework roms i think used kernals where the source had not been released, which is illegal. I have a terrible memory, but I think that's why, but correct me if I'm wrong
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The kernel used in the thread for Galnet MIUI ICS for the Infuse actually did have its source posted. But then the link to the source disappeared and the thread was locked. Conspiracy? But now that there's an official build on the Galnet site, I don't really care.
What kernals
Can we use on CM7.
I am a compulsive flasher, there you go I admit it.
One thing though I am sure it's been mentioned somewhere but what kernals work with CM7 RC02. I see some kernals mention they will softbrick the phone, so avoid those but which don't.
Many thanks
Ah Ok I found that hard to believe that mods would do that. Ty for the reply
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using XDA App
Favorite Rom
Most usable Rom for me has been Serendipity VII.
Everything works except HDMI. Has the first call bug.
I wish I could utilize MIUI or CM7 on a daily basis, but I like streaming bluetooth music and/or calls to my car and those 2 roms lack proper bluetooth drivers.
download a few roms test see what one you like most
WIN the best rom for your phone
kikin81 said:
Most usable Rom for me has been Serendipity VII.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's nice to see all of the activity and roms in development lately. Lots of good choices, but Serendipity has been a favorite of mine as well.
I'd like to join this if I may
Which one has the best kernel for max CPU performance? ie 1.5Ghz+
Infusion kernel is the only GB kernel that can be OC ...and its 1.4 or 1.6..
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using xda premium
Is this what most ROM's use? Or do most ROM's utilize the original kernel included in the stock phone? I should probably read the details of the roms more clearly right?
Well...the roms I build all include entropys daily driver which cannot be overclocked but is an amazing and smooth kernel....the ported roms have the modified hellraiser kernel but u can flash entropys or bedwas infusion kernel over them....yes reading would be better before you flash anything
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using xda premium
So someone please explain to me how This Is possible. I was under the belief in my understanding of android that this is a BIG NO NO. I do realize and I may not fully understand the similarities and differences between the different versions of the SGS3 but I would think that because of the Radio being different among all of the carriers that Kernels would be totally different as well. I will reference the Fascinate and the Mesmerize for example. Pretty much the same phone but completely different as far as anything and everything development wise. So what it boils down is this
1. Can we flash kernels designed for the At&t, Sprint, or T-Mobile versions of our phone.
2.What versions of the SGS3 can we SAFELY flash Kernels from.
3.How is this possible given the differences in the different phones.(Question for my sake cause I am really curious and hope i can get a good explanation regarding this)
Aali1011 said:
So someone please explain to me how This Is possible. I was under the belief in my understanding of android that this is a BIG NO NO. I do realize and I may not fully understand the similarities and differences between the different versions of the SGS3 but I would think that because of the Radio being different among all of the carriers that Kernels would be totally different as well. I will reference the Fascinate and the Mesmerize for example. Pretty much the same phone but completely different as far as anything and everything development wise. So what it boils down is this
1. Can we flash kernels designed for the At&t, Sprint, or T-Mobile versions of our phone.
2.What versions of the SGS3 can we SAFELY flash Kernels from.
3.How is this possible given the differences in the different phones.(Question for my sake cause I am really curious and hope i can get a good explanation regarding this)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There have been some successful instances of sprint kernels being flashed that I've seen, but it is never a great idea to flash kernels not specifically designed for your phone. btw. there are some pretty good kernels available for vzw now
It's a pretty bad idea. There is a very small chance it could work but more than likely it won't boot
arrogantS3 said:
There have been some successful instances of sprint kernels being flashed that I've seen, but it is never a great idea to flash kernels not specifically designed for your phone. btw. there are some pretty good kernels available for vzw now
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And i figured as much. I am just REALLY surprised it worked and I just kinda wanna know why it worked. The technical reasons to be honest. But to play it safe i will just stick with those kernels that have been made for the Verizon version thus far. I am still hesitant using the Sprint Kernel even knowing it works.
Neverendingxsin said:
It's a pretty bad idea. There is a very small chance it could work but more than likely it won't boot
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And based of of you saying this and me knowing this is why i ask lol. Cause like arrogant says there have been successful flashes of the Sprint Kernel. Again idk everything there is about Android but i wonder if it possible due to the fact our unlocked bootloader is partially sprint or something along those lines. That is why i was hoping someone would see this and chime in with a technical explanation and then either a go for it, no, or tread with caution. When the phone was being released there was talks of a rom kitchen being established between the carriers and i was hoping that this was a part of that. Meaning that someone who Devs for the AT&T version of the SGS3 can have their rom or kernel ported to Sprint version and then the Verizon and T-Mobile variants. Idk if the kitchen is still a possibility or in the works but it would be cool to see it kernel wise considering most are running AOSP based roms.
I tried to flash att one two days ago, can not turn wifi on....
So, not recommended
Aali1011 said:
And based of of you saying this and me knowing this is why i ask lol. Cause like arrogant says there have been successful flashes of the Sprint Kernel. Again idk everything there is about Android but i wonder if it possible due to the fact our unlocked bootloader is partially sprint or something along those lines. That is why i was hoping someone would see this and chime in with a technical explanation and then either a go for it, no, or tread with caution. When the phone was being released there was talks of a rom kitchen being established between the carriers and i was hoping that this was a part of that. Meaning that someone who Devs for the AT&T version of the SGS3 can have their rom or kernel ported to Sprint version and then the Verizon and T-Mobile variants. Idk if the kitchen is still a possibility or in the works but it would be cool to see it kernel wise considering most are running AOSP based roms.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Some kernels could very well work, same as some stock themes for sprint will work with stock roms on verizon (jellybomb domination being one of them) the issue is that some things could be carried over that may not play nice with our phones and vice versa. While it may run perfectly fine, there's a greater risk that it could break something.
I have yet to run an AOSP rom because of the IMEI issues, so i can't really comment on that, but i know if i was going to flash another carriers kernel i would make sure to make a backup first.
Not really a technical question but I was wondering what we "noobs" and devs that aren't working on the 3.0.8 kernel can do to speed up or help in the development (we're all in this together right!?) Donations may help but are there any builds we can test with alogcats or just repetitive labor that manpower can aid in? If so feel free to put it here. One tip, guides to non intuitive stuff would help because like I said there are a quite a few noobs lurking (me included). Hopefully this is in the right thread I was contemplating putting it on the general but I wasn't sure.
I'm sure if they needed our help they would ask as they know many of us want to help. Best thing to do is just be patient and not bug them.
I guess you can help by flashing the build posted in the cm9 thread and reporting any bugs that haven't already been reported.
Sent from my SGH-T959V using xda app-developers app
This is a terrible way to get on the good book. Just fork bhundvens github repo. Make changes that work or look good, then push a pull request, then you'll be good.
Also, its called Aries not aires
Sent from my SGH-T959V using xda premium
Sit tight, let Bryan do his thing, and enjoy it when it gets here.
Sent from my SGH-T959V using xda premium
gregcapps said:
Sit tight, let Bryan do his thing, and enjoy it when it gets here.
Sent from my SGH-T959V using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A passive approach works too
Educate me what is Aries?
Bitcloud30 said:
Educate me what is Aries?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is the proper Kernel for ICS which is more stable and offers better battery life. More specifically it is the machine type of the phone. Currently all builds are herring.
it's not a "Proper Kernel" per se.
Just the team hacksung people created a generic kernel to work with for all the Galaxy S 1 devices. Well, there are alot more devs over there and that's what's officially supported by CM. So now we are trying to merge into the official Galaxy S CM kernel.
Correct me if I'm wrong but Aries is the processor that our phone runs on it is hardware not software meaning it is a physical component that can't be changed by flashing any files
Sent from my SGH-T959V using xda app-developers app
anoymonos said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but Aries is the processor that our phone runs on it is hardware not software meaning it is a physical component that can't be changed by flashing any files
Sent from my SGH-T959V using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
nope, the processor is hummingbird. too many codenames. :silly:
also known as Exynos which is what anoymonos was getting confused with.
One of the big reasons to get on a kernel based on the Aries source is that it makes it a lot easier to move forward with AOSP releases. Right now, "our" kernel is a bit of AOSP, a bit of Samsung stock, a bit of TeamAcid work, a bit of TeamHacksung, a bit of..., so every time something comes up, it is a "custom job" to add it. I won't say that getting closer to mainline code will make JB a slam dunk, but without it, it would likely be lipstick on the pig.
Aries and Herring are Board Names (think motherboard).
Exynos and s5pc110 are Processor Names (both are SoC with the RAM in a PoP configuration).
Herring is the board name used for the nexus one and nexus s in Google's AOSP Samsung source.
The main board definition file for herring is: mach-herring.c
When Samsung worked with t-mobile, at&t, verizon, etc... to make Galaxy S phones, they basically reused the AOSP Samsung kernel for multiple devices. For instance, if you look at our UVKJ6 kernel drop, you will notice ifdefs in there for VIBRANTPLUS (Galaxy S 4G), KEPLER (Captivate), DEMPSEY (Infuse 4G), and a few others.
Aries is the main board definition file for the stock kernel is: mach-aries.c
Even though the board name is still herring. Ger.
They basically copied mach-herring.c to mach-aries.c and made their changes in mach-aries.c.
The Aries kernel, like jeffsf mentioned, is a kernel made by teamhacksung to be a combined kernel for galaxy s devices, and they use mach-aries.c and the aries board name.
If you get the stock kernel drop for any of these other devices in the same kernel drop from their respective drop, there will be subtle differences between each kernel drop. (crazy huh?)
And every file that samsung touches gains tens of lines of ifdefs, sometimes conflicting, as well as code that was '#if 0'ed out because they didn't code it right and left some other variable definitions without also '#if 0'ing them as well leaving nasty build warnings.
If you don't know anything about embedded devices, linux kernel development, or kernel debugging, just lay back and chill. We're getting close, just some nasty rough edges to clean up.
If you do have one or more of those skills, join us in #teamacid.
As it stands right now, most of the problems are GPIO issues. I am having a rough go at figuring out our GPIO configuration for this phone. Everytime I think I figure out something I find that I am wrong.
Also, to make things harder and more confusing, unlike the stock kernels, the aries kernel puts the GPIO pin configuration right in mach-aries.c, where as stock kernels put them in include/mach/gpio-settings-<devicename>.h... :sigh:
Hopefully m4xm4n and jeffsf can give me a hand with this stuff.
It would be nice if some teamhacksung members could give a hand and some guidance.
bhundven said:
Aries and Herring are Board Names (think motherboard).
Exynos and s5pc110 are Processor Names (both are SoC with the RAM in a PoP configuration).
Herring is the board name used for the nexus one and nexus s in Google's AOSP Samsung source.
The main board definition file for herring is: mach-herring.c
When Samsung worked with t-mobile, at&t, verizon, etc... to make Galaxy S phones, they basically reused the AOSP Samsung kernel for multiple devices. For instance, if you look at our UVKJ6 kernel drop, you will notice ifdefs in there for VIBRANTPLUS (Galaxy S 4G), KEPLER (Captivate), DEMPSEY (Infuse 4G), and a few others.
Aries is the main board definition file for the stock kernel is: mach-aries.c
Even though the board name is still herring. Ger.
They basically copied mach-herring.c to mach-aries.c and made their changes in mach-aries.c.
The Aries kernel, like jeffsf mentioned, is a kernel made by teamhacksung to be a combined kernel for galaxy s devices, and they use mach-aries.c and the aries board name.
If you get the stock kernel drop for any of these other devices in the same kernel drop from their respective drop, there will be subtle differences between each kernel drop. (crazy huh?)
And every file that samsung touches gains tens of lines of ifdefs, sometimes conflicting, as well as code that was '#if 0'ed out because they didn't code it right and left some other variable definitions without also '#if 0'ing them as well leaving nasty build warnings.
If you don't know anything about embedded devices, linux kernel development, or kernel debugging, just lay back and chill. We're getting close, just some nasty rough edges to clean up.
If you do have one or more of those skills, join us in #teamacid.
As it stands right now, most of the problems are GPIO issues. I am having a rough go at figuring out our GPIO configuration for this phone. Everytime I think I figure out something I find that I am wrong.
Also, to make things harder and more confusing, unlike the stock kernels, the aries kernel puts the GPIO pin configuration right in mach-aries.c, where as stock kernels put them in include/mach/gpio-settings-<devicename>.h... :sigh:
Hopefully m4xm4n and jeffsf can give me a hand with this stuff.
It would be nice if some teamhacksung members could give a hand and some guidance.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hopefully you get the help you need. Hey here's a dumb question, could you not call the manufacturers of the phone and ask them what the gpio config is?
IIRC the gpio functions are part of a proprietary code source. So no Samsung will not tell you.
eollie said:
IIRC the gpio functions are part of a proprietary code source. So no Samsung will not tell you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The GPIO pins are signal pins on the SoC that allow you to connect external devices to the main cpu.
It is actually specific to the board because each phone have different connected devices (such as lcd panel, wifi, touch screen, etc...).
The GPIO pins and interrupt signals are all documented in the S5PC110 User Manual, but the pin layout in that manual is specific to the reference board it is describing. Each phone/device has its own GPIO layout and it is specific to the schematic.
Sure wish we had a vibrantplus schematic.
airfluip1 said:
it's not a "Proper Kernel" per se.
Just the team hacksung people created a generic kernel to work with for all the Galaxy S 1 devices. Well, there are alot more devs over there and that's what's officially supported by CM. So now we are trying to merge into the official Galaxy S CM kernel.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
OK...maybe not a "proper" kernel technically , but certainly a whole lot closer to what to we need to have a better experience with the newer versions of android os.
Sent from my SGH-T959V using xda premium
you aren't wrong. I just explained it a bit.
@othern00bs
Here is a simple way to put it for the others who are confused
CyanogenMod Team made kernel = aries = more polished = newer kernel version = we can get regular kernel/version updates because the team acid members won't have to manually port them = potentially Jellybean in the long run (as soon as ICS is polished)
TeamAcidMTD kernel = herring = older version ported to work with ICS = needed to port again for JB = buggier = degraded bat life = manually having to port each change and CM version
bhundven said:
Sure wish we had a vibrantplus schematic.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What, the 2426 pages of S5PC110 manual aren't enough bedtime reading for you?
(No, the page count is not a joke.)
Well, I agree that getting Some Hacksung member on IRC should help you.