Related
Hey guys,
I know we have been using mocked up kernels for the sense 3.0 shoot ports and they have for the most part been stunning. I see HTC release the source code for the kernels for numerous recent devices
http://www.androidcentral.com/htc-r...ncluding-evo-3d-sensation-4g-and-incredible-2
Not sure if any of this could be helpful in building a more stable kernel. If it is and any of the Dev's come up with a new one and need testing, send me a PM and i will be glad to help.
Franzie3 said:
Hey guys,
I know we have been using mocked up kernels for the sense 3.0 shoot ports and they have for the most part been stunning. I see HTC release the source code for the kernels for numerous recent devices
http://www.androidcentral.com/htc-r...ncluding-evo-3d-sensation-4g-and-incredible-2
Not sure if any of this could be helpful in building a more stable kernel. If it is and any of the Dev's come up with a new one and need testing, send me a PM and i will be glad to help.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The only kernel source of real use, or that we can really use at all, is the Thunderbolt kernel. Until we get a GB kernel source release, nothing great will happen.
mb02 said:
The only kernel source of real use, or that we can really use at all, is the Thunderbolt kernel. Until we get a GB kernel source release, nothing great will happen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"This is a minimalistic Thunderbolt kernel based on the HTC Desire HD source (ace-2.6.35.10), then upgraded to 2.6.35.13. It also includes some code from 2.6.36.x and 3.0rc6 (that's right you read correctly). A lot of the mods in my kernel are fairly experimental and not typically done by other kernel devs, so I would not get too upset if things don't work sometimes."
From Imoseyon's GB Sense kernel thread. I'm not really following what you're saying here.
AOSP Kernels for HTC's 8x50, 7x30, and 8x60 Devices
Also available for the Motorola Xoom
Tiamat kernels are designed for use on all ROMs that are built from the AOSP source code. This includes ROMs built from MIUI, CyanogenMod, and others.
Tiamat receives no support for use with ROMs based on HTC's Sense - use at your own risk.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Tiamat Kernels
You can find full details about Tiamat Kernels at our website. The site is up and running and serves as a more centralized location to get updates, downloads, and changelogs for all Tiamat Kernels. There is no forum or Registration, it’s just a more convenient way to keep things organized as we work to add support for more devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Support
Join the Tiamat Kernel developers on IRC at irc.freenode.net, #tiamat. Support and questions are generally handled faster there than the forums. You can easily join via webchat here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Special Thanks to:
toastcfh, slayher and the CyanogenMod team for the base kernels and everything else they do for the Android community
bcnice20 for generally being awesome
TeamWin for also generally being awesome
netarchy, chad0989, cuviper, and invisiblek for some great code
intersectRaven and redstar3894 for the Mjolnir compiler
JasonK75 for updating threads
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Quick Links
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
8x50 Changelog
8x60 Changelog
7x30 Changelog
Downloads
FAQ
Source Code
Awesome to see u guys on sensation your all over my xoom!!
Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk
The only issues i had now is that i flash this kernel and i wasnt able to unlock my phone. think i might wanna reflash it again .
Edit:Still the same problem. I hope i'm not the only one here.
Welcome guys. I'll be testing this kernel as well im glad your deving for our device.
Sent from my HTC Sensation 4G using Tapatalk
Hm interessting, really want to try but, can you tell us more ?
Is this kernel made for performance and it's OC ?
Or is it not OC by default and can give us better battery ? I really search a kernel for a good battery life : )
What version do I need for HTC Sensation?
Remember to give THANKS were THANKS is due.
Try to install this kernel on TripNMiUI Beta, get the bootloop
I'm sorry it would help if I would read a little more. I found right Kernel, flashing now.
Remember to give THANKS were THANKS is due.
Works fine on cm7 for me. Although battery drain seems high, will report back after a full charge discharge cycle.
Sent from my Sensation 4G
Thanks, no Problems so far, but low benchmark results.
g3c said:
Thanks, no Problems so far, but low benchmark results.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
using what benchmark app? quadrant is laughably useless on these device. seriously, run it several times in a row -- your scores will vary wildly. That is the definition of unreliable. The app may as well be a random number generator at this point. Also, it never bothers to use the second core.
r00tk1t said:
Try to install this kernel on TripNMiUI Beta, get the bootloop
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's tested on CM7. The MIUI ROMs at this point (and really a shocking number of other 'AOSP' ROMs) are drawing far too heavily on Sense to work well with this kernel (or the kernel packed in CM7 for that matter).
r00tk1t said:
Try to install this kernel on TripNMiUI Beta, get the bootloop
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
damn, was hoping to use this with trip's miui and hopefully fix the bt sound issues
Hey cayniarb, love the kernel any idea what's instore for the next release? More gpu and bus oc?
Sent from my Sensation 4G
Good to see you here, cayniarb. See you on IRC.
r00tk1t said:
Try to install this kernel on TripNMiUI Beta, get the bootloop
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Cayniarb said:
It's tested on CM7. The MIUI ROMs at this point (and really a shocking number of other 'AOSP' ROMs) are drawing far too heavily on Sense to work well with this kernel (or the kernel packed in CM7 for that matter).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Working just fine for me on TripNMiUI.
I used Tiamat on Evo and it worked great
Cant wait to try this out
Thanks OP!!!
Cayniarb said:
using what benchmark app? quadrant is laughably useless on these device. seriously, run it several times in a row -- your scores will vary wildly. That is the definition of unreliable. The app may as well be a random number generator at this point. Also, it never bothers to use the second core.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I used CF-Bench
~7500 with faux v0.1.4 @ 1.67 and cm7
~5300 with tiamat v1.0.0 @ 1.67 and cm7
Do you have other results?
turkeyshark said:
Working just fine for me on TripNMiUI.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
does bt sound work for you? thats the big problem. pairs easy but no sound.
---------- Post added at 08:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:11 AM ----------
detroit2hi said:
I used Tiamat on Evo and it worked great
Cant wait to try this out
Thanks OP!!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
same here! great kernals for the evo
cmart4 said:
does bt sound work for you? thats the big problem. pairs easy but no sound.
Sorry don't use bt so no idea
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi all, so I've been wanting a really nice optimized Linaro recovery and have not been able to find one. So I decided to build my own and have found it to be very nice and stable, and of course to share with all of you xda peps
First off if you don't know what TWRP recovery is the original nexus 7 thread is HERE
Please read all of the original thread before flashing this recovery.
More info on how this recovery was built
Built using Linaro gcc 4.7 toolchain. I also built the toolchain from Linaro's gcc source. The toolchain source is HERE
This toolchain source gets update almost daily from linaro sources, but I don't normally have the time to build new toolchains daily. When I have time I will update it quite frequently.
Built off my own 4.1.2 kernel source. The kernel used to build this recovery was also compiled using the Linaro 4.7 toolchain.
I've added a few linaro recovery patches for interfaces to libpng. Those changes are HERE and HERE.
Built using Linaro bionic string routines optimizations.
Installation
Download the recovery image and flash in fastboot
Initial release 2.3.1.1 touch recovery
10.28.12 release 2.3.1.1 touch recovery
Kernel changes
Removed a lot of bloat from the kernel. I disabled GPU overclocking, user voltage control, cpu overclocking, a bunch of useless debugging stuff.
A short kernel changelog is HERE
Toolchain changes
Not much here. I included a static library to be used in the toolchain libiberty
A short changelog for the toolchain is HERE
Recovery changes
Built as engineering instead of userdebug.
11.5.12 release 2.3.1.1 touch recovery
Final android 4.1.2 linaro recovery version
Kernel changes
Mainline linux kernel upstream changes from linux-3.2.y
Changed kernel compression mode to GZIP and optimization level to -Os
Toolchain changes
Updated to latest linaro changes
Recovery changes
-O3 optimization level
Linaro strict-aliasing compiler flags optimization
Android-4.1.2 (This version is a final release, no more updates)
Size: 6.95 MB
MD5: e0f46f01556156b052b3779c9ed60e01
What? A Linaro recovery? I did not know there was such thing. I am downloading this now very excitedly.
Thank you. Very very helpful and nice.
OK... Now I need more info! I sorta understand the Linaro concept but my knowledge is limited. What's the reasons to base Recovery on it at this point? Any advantages, possible concerns? Will there be any noticeable differences? Just curious & wondering cause you said "you'd been wanting to make a recovery based on linaro".
Thank!
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
Hi men!
Thanks for your recovery.
But i experience some strange visual effects like distortion of the image or some lag effects.
---------- Post added at 04:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:16 PM ----------
djd338 said:
OK... Now I need more info! I sorta understand the Linaro concept but my knowledge is limited. What's the reasons to base Recovery on it at this point? Any advantages, possible concerns? Will there be any noticeable differences? Just curious & wondering cause you said "you'd been wanting to make a recovery based on linaro".
Thank!
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is a discussion on this subject regarding some tests Ezekeel (XDA developper) made with different cross-compiler toolchains and those tests prooved that none of the compilers is better than another.
We heard a lot about linaro because when ICS was released, it was very laggy and linaro and is new compiler version 4.7 made ICS much smoother than before.
But for the pur performance linaro give no improvement if you compare with another one.
EDIT: I found the link of the test for you: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=19872366&postcount=1
i remember this test,and also in my home test when i tried to build kernel,i don't see improvement using linaro or others toolchains..anyway it's great to have another thing to play on and see if it's best that the ufficial!
sert00 said:
i remember this test,and also in my home test when i tried to build kernel,i don't see improvement using linaro or others toolchains..anyway it's great to have another thing to play on and see if it's best that the ufficial!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agree with you.
It wasn't for discredit the work of sparksco. I'm glad to test his work.
Just answer the question for the cross-compiler.
Thanks for the work sparksco
[email protected]_OC said:
Hi men!
There is a discussion on this subject regarding some tests Ezekeel (XDA developper) made with different cross-compiler toolchains and those tests prooved that none of the compilers is better than another.
We heard a lot about linaro because when ICS was released, it was very laggy and linaro and is new compiler version 4.7 made ICS much smoother than before.
But for the pur performance linaro give no improvement if you compare with another one.
EDIT: I found the link of the test for you: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=19872366&postcount=1
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's one test with one toolchain by one developer. As far as I can tell he tested everything with one of linaro's really old toolchaons when they first released 4.6. So by looking at the dates I would guess linaro didn't add much to the toolchain at that point. There's also the GCC version to consider. This is using 4.7 and not 4.6. And lastly there's rom patches that linaro puts out that have nothing to do with the kernel but are used in the ROM building process when building recoveries. It's all debatable. I find this to be a bit smoother and backups seems to be a little faster but maybe it's just me.
[email protected]_OC said:
Hi men!
Thanks for your recovery.
But i experience some strange visual effects like distortion of the image or some lag effects.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your going to have to provide more info than that. Your method of installing, what bootloader you have ect. Thanks.
Edit: flashing zip in recovery causes issues so I removed that method of installing.
sparksco said:
That's one test with one toolchain by one developer. As far as I can tell he tested everything with one of linaro's really old toolchaons when they first released 4.6. So by looking at the dates I would guess linaro didn't add much to the toolchain at that point. There's also the GCC version to consider. This is using 4.7 and not 4.6. And lastly there's rom patches that linaro puts out that have nothing to do with the kernel but are used in the ROM building process when building recoveries. It's all debatable. I find this to be a bit smoother and backups seems to be a little faster but maybe it's just me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thanks.after give a try to this recovery,i agree with you with fact of possible quickest backup time.the general use is good,don't know if it's real an improvement,but i did a backup and at first look it seemed quicker..possible placebo effect,let's see what others say..
why you pulled cwm install version...bugged?
There's a lot of factors to consider. Just the fact that this is using a kernel I built with 4.7 from my own source code could improve things as well. FYI the kernel includes GPU overclocking.
sert00 said:
why you pulled cwm install version...bugged?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Read one post above yours...
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
sparksco said:
There's a lot of factors to consider. Just the fact that this is using a kernel I built with 4.7 from my own source code could improve things as well. FYI the kernel includes GPU overclocking.
Read one post above yours...
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
oh thanks,not saw the edit in the post!
New version is up.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
I installed last night using goomanager, so I assume I have the previous version?
Anyway, it works great, so thanks.
stonebear said:
I installed last night using goomanager, so I assume I have the previous version?
Anyway, it works great, so thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am pretty sure you get the Official TWRP version from goomanager not this. Please correct me if I am wrong but I think that is what the Unofficial means.
zedorda said:
I am pretty sure you get the Official TWRP version from goomanager not this. Please correct me if I am wrong but I think that is what the Unofficial means.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea, I just realised that myself when I saw there were two threads.
What's the difference between this and ClockWorkMod? Is it more stable?
Neo3D said:
What's the difference between this and ClockWorkMod? Is it more stable?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Some more features on TWRP I think, especially the queue to flash multiple ZIP files. Flash it and see for yourself
modstorm said:
Some more features on TWRP I think, especially the queue to flash multiple ZIP files. Flash it and see for yourself
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That, and I like the fact that you have an option to wipe cache/dalvik after flashing something
markj338 said:
That, and I like the fact that you have an option to wipe cache/dalvik after flashing something
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That and TWRP can also be themed however I never found any themes :/
Nexus 4 community has a working cm11 franco
they used 2 cherrypicks from CM's Github c53fb6d134 and 07cbfb9a9c to achieve it
Can someone please post a test build here with these 2 cherrypicks
i dont know how to build a kernel
Thank You
iamawsm4 said:
Nexus 4 community has a working cm11 franco
they used 2 cherrypicks from CM's Github c53fb6d134 and 07cbfb9a9c to achieve it
Can someone please post a test build here with these 2 cherrypicks
i dont know how to build a kernel
Thank You
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nexus 5 community has this
No need to build a kernel yourself.
Primokorn said:
Nexus 5 community has this
No need to build a kernel yourself.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
many people are complaining that it doesnt work with the new nightlies
iamawsm4 said:
many people are complaining that it doesnt work with the new nightlies
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So make your choice between CAF and AOSP.
best thing you can do is
build your own kernel(ask them what they used/changed)
or
try alternative CAF kernels
or
wait till the devs do it themselves.
You cant rush genius.
its just that only if someone could make a test build with those 2 cherrypicks
I hope that _that will lead us in this topic because he seems to know away more than I do. I am here to learn and feel free to discuss anything that you like. No restrictions so we can get all the input from other users....
What is a toolchain?
After discussion with a few users, it is a mixed of toolchain types that they use.. According to my research, androideabi is targetting ROM build and optimize for the ROMs' binaries. It is fine when you use it to compile your kernel source but it is not optimized for the kernel compilation.
For kernel compiling, you should use the gnueabi toolchain because it uses the kernel's source for a specific kernel version during the toolcchain compiling for a better compatibility, I guess... However, some users reported that it was fine to use for ROM build also...
So the question is it matter what types of toolchains we are using? What are the benefits between the two? Does anyone see any difference between the two with users' experiences?
Here I will take this spot and fill it with useful info and links about what I have found on the web .... :good:
MythBusters XDA Edition: “Optimized” Compiler Toolchains
USING THE ANDROID TOOLCHAIN AS A STANDALONE COMPILER
ELinuxToolchains
The GNU Toolchain for ARM targets
ARM
lj50036 said:
Here I will take this spot and fill it with useful info and links about what I have found on the web .... :good:
MythBusters XDA Edition: “Optimized” Compiler Toolchains
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is great that you are joining the discussion because I have a lot of questions and some good optimizations while I tested with these toolchains. I will give what I know a long the way when the questions come up and hope we will have a better understanding what to use and not to use...
In the olden days, I used the 4.6.2 linaro toolchains and I have heard that a lot of people swear by DoomLord's prebuilts.
Just wanted to throw that out there. I personally have not tried anything above 4.7 yet but now I am tempted to
hardslog said:
In the olden days, I used the 4.6.2 linaro toolchains and I have heard that a lot of people swear by DoomLord's prebuilts.
Just wanted to throw that out there. I personally have not tried anything above 4.7 yet but now I am tempted to
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Adding to your comment, I do see a performance improvement with different toolchains but some users said it is just a placebo...:crying: I am one of the trials and errors users with testing so nothing is going to stop me until proving by testing and users' experiences, haha...
BTW, I could not get the gcc-4.8/4.9 to work on our tf700 chipset yet because there are some graphical problems on linux kernel v3.1.10. I hope that someone can figure it out so we can test it...
There is a PAC rom in the TF300 forums that claims they are using SaberMod 4.8 without issues. http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2501869
Furthermore there is a kernel (no longer in development it seems) in the TF300 forums that claims to use linaro 4.8 toolchains http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2625580
hardslog said:
There is a PAC rom in the TF300 forums that claims they are using SaberMod 4.8 without issues. http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2501869
Furthermore there is a kernel (no longer in development it seems) in the TF300 forums that claims to use linaro 4.8 toolchains http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2625580
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the information...:good: I will look more into it when I have more time..
BTW, You should try the linaro toolchain for your kernel compilation but you should use the right kernel version that you intend to run. It is running very smooth... It takes less than 10 minutes to compile and test it out..
Cross Compiler Toolchains [Linaro GCC]
Hi,
Interesting thread but in my humble opinion should be in TF700's development section. So, I just used Christopher83's Toolchain for compiling _that's that10 kernel and flash it in CROMBi-kk RC3. As we have Tegra 3 Soc I used the toolchain with arm-cortex_a9-linux-gnueabi prefix which is optimized for Cortex-A9 cpu with Neon-VFPv3. I tested all the latest versions: 4.9 doesn't work at all (the TF700 was vibrating continuously!), the 4.8 had visual glitches but with 4.7 is working with no problems at all! Finally, from the same thread krislibaeer clarifies a bit the linaro prebuilt toolchains
here a little explanation:
arm-eabi toolchain: is for kernels
arm-linux-androideabi: is for rom building
so you use the arm-eabi toolchain for your kernels and the arm-linux-androideabi for roms
hope it helps a bit
so recommend is the arm-eabi toolchain for kernels
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hope that helps the discussion.
Cheers.
sziggins said:
Hi,
Interesting thread but in my humble opinion should be in TF700's development section. So, I just used Christopher83's Toolchain for compiling _that's that10 kernel and flash it in CROMBi-kk RC3. As we have Tegra 3 Soc I used the toolchain with arm-cortex_a9-linux-gnueabi prefix which is optimized for Cortex-A9 cpu with Neon-VFPv3. I tested all the latest versions: 4.9 doesn't work at all (the TF700 was vibrating continuously!), the 4.8 had visual glitches but with 4.7 is working with no problems at all! Finally, from the same thread krislibaeer clarifies a bit the linaro prebuilt toolchains
Hope that helps the discussion.
Cheers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are a few things that you need to pay attention to.
1. Neon-VFPv3 is for Cortex-a8 and not for a9. You may want to flag it as neon-fp16..
2. I believed that your toolchain is targetting linux kernel version 3.4.x or something but not for version 3.1.10.
3. I have the same issues with my owm builds gcc-4.8/4.9 without any solution.
4. Try some of -Ofast flag to see the improvement on v3.1.10
Good luck....:fingers-crossed:
LetMeKnow said:
There are a few things that you need to pay attention to.
1. Neon-VFPv3 is for Cortex-a8 and not for a9. You may want to flag it as neon-fp16..
2. I believed that your toolchain is targetting linux kernel version 3.4.x or something but not for version 3.1.10.
3. I have the same issues with my owm builds gcc-4.8/4.9 without any solution.
4. Try some of -Ofast flag to see the improvement on v3.1.10
Good luck....:fingers-crossed:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just an FYI
I took the plunge and tried a new toolchain. Ended up trying a 4.9 linaro one for the Grimlock Kernel. Works like a champ on my TF300t. HOWEVER for some reason it will not even boot on a TF700. I'm told it vibrates and the screen goes all white or something. So here is the question:
Why would new toolchains work fine on a TF300 but not on a TF700? One of the transformers' great mysteries :laugh:
hardslog said:
Just an FYI
I took the plunge and tried a new toolchain. Ended up trying a 4.9 linaro one for the Grimlock Kernel. Works like a champ on my TF300t. HOWEVER for some reason it will not even boot on a TF700. I'm told it vibrates and the screen goes all white or something. So here is the question:
Why would new toolchains work fine on a TF300 but not on a TF700? One of the transformers' great mysteries :laugh:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the information and very good quedtion....:good:
Here is my wild guess because the chipset is using in the tf700t, cortex-a9 t33... I checked the diffs on gcc4.7 and gcc4.9 and tried to match all libraries in hope that I could narrow down the bug but it was failed. There was one time that I succeeded boot into the tf700 with my compiled gcc4.9 and thought that I found the bug but if I rebooted it, it got back to the graphical issue, flicking screen... If I rebooted a few more times then the tf700 was working again. I did all my best to figure out the bug but it was a big failure at the end. That is how far it goes as of today... I don't know enough to solve the mysteries and hope that someone else will....:fingers-crossed:
LetMeKnow said:
Thanks for the information and very good quedtion....:good:
Here is my wild guess because the chipset is using in the tf700t, cortex-a9 t33... I checked the diffs on gcc4.7 and gcc4.9 and tried to match all libraries in hope that I could narrow down the bug but it was failed. There was one time that I succeeded boot into the tf700 with my compiled gcc4.9 and thought that I found the bug but if I rebooted it, it got back to the graphical issue, flicking screen... If I rebooted a few more times then the tf700 was working again. I did all my best to figure out the bug but it was a big failure at the end. That is how far it goes as of today... I don't know enough to solve the mysteries and hope that someone else will....:fingers-crossed:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Have you tried to compile a stock TF700 kernel with a 4.8 or 4.9 toolchain? I'm asking because _that kernel and Grimlock kernel actually change the cpu_speedo_id of the TF700 from 5 to 12
For reference check this commit: https://github.com/Hardslog/grimlock_kernel_asus_tegra3_unified/commit/50a19d0f6d6d03e6187a8fa7273be77755d72324#diff-c8f9ec2e1535a394abdd70e576a02ed7R160
I can only go so far with testing as I don't own a TF700........
hardslog said:
Have you tried to compile a stock TF700 kernel with a 4.8 or 4.9 toolchain? I'm asking because _that kernel and Grimlock kernel actually change the cpu_speedo_id of the TF700 from 5 to 12
For reference check this commit: https://github.com/Hardslog/grimlock_kernel_asus_tegra3_unified/commit/50a19d0f6d6d03e6187a8fa7273be77755d72324#diff-c8f9ec2e1535a394abdd70e576a02ed7R160
I can only go so far with testing as I don't own a TF700........
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, I have not but it is a good idea to try out. I have a few more days before leaving for two weeks... I will report back before the weekend, thanks again...:highfive:
BTW, have you try some -Ofast flags, not the -Ofast itself? Some of them are working very well with tf700 kernel..
Update: I don't have time to try your recommendation because I am preparing for my business trip. I will give it a test when I am back...