Related
To make it perfectly clear: This is a vanilla development kernel. It has absolutely no features the stock kernel does not have (no ext4, no OC, no nothing). But it may cause problems (SOD, eat battery, the apocalypse... you get the idea). This kernel only exists, because all earlier efforts to compile a stabel kernel have not been successfull.
EDIT: And this one isn't either. SOD-issue not solved - may occur less often, though. I'm not releasing the kernel, because it remains faulty.
EDIT2: Samsung released new sources on the 18th of November. Use these and the new toolchain instead!
First things first: The setup.
The Samsung GB source is used. Extract it to a new directory - do not copy it over the Froyo sources, simply because it says "Update1". You should now have something like
Code:
/home/<user>/<working_directory>/Kernel/...
and a folder for the platform - the latter will not be used.
The toolchain is from Codesourcery: Sourcery G++ Lite 2009q3-68 for ARM EABI. Extract it to wherever you like. Just remember the path (<your_path>).
The path to the toolchain, and the correct EXTRAVERSION are adjusted in the Makefile. Nothing else. The EXTRAVERSION is different for every firmware - see: settings => about phone.
Code:
cd /home/<user>/<working_directory>/Kernel/
gedit Makefile
Look out for:
Code:
...
EXTRAVERSION=.7-CL467143
...
CROSS_COMPILE=/<your_path>/toolchain/arm-2009q3/bin/arm-none-linux-gnueabi-
Thanks to Skin at this point, for his helpful tips!
A little spring cleaning is performed
Code:
cd /home/<user>/<working_directory>/Kernel/
make mrproper
This will delete all precompiled files and the config.
The config is extracted directly from the device with
Code:
cd /home/<user>/<working_directory>/
adb pull /proc/config.gz
gunzip config.gz
cp config /Kernel/.config
What happens after setting up everything:
The kernel is compiled.
Code:
make
The Samsung readme recommends another alternative:
Code:
make android_latona_r08_eng_defconfig
make
Do not run this, if you want to keep the .config from the device intact! This will overwrite it, and you will compile with different settings than the kernel on your i9003.
With the help of Skins unpack-repack-tools (look here), a flashable PDA is created. The CF-root normalboot.img from the 21.08.2011 is used as a basis (I like this one, no special reason ). Only the zImage is replaced with the self-compiled kernel.
The PDA is flashed with ODIN.
After the first reboot, the cache and Dalvik-cache are cleaned in CWM.
Have fun testing! And remember to make a nandroid backup. If you want to go back, flash Skins original CWM, and restore the nandroid backup afterwards.
What do you mean by stable here,XXKPH is quite stable for me
yamchirobe said:
What do you mean by stable here,XXKPH is quite stable for me
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Dude he is talking about custom kernal & not about stock kernal. Problem with gb sources is that whenever we compile a kernal it has SOD problem. So this thread is suggesting info how to build a stable kernal.
vishal24387 said:
Dude he is talking about custom kernal & not about stock kernal. Problem with gb sources is that whenever we compile a kernal it has SOD problem. So this thread is suggesting info how to build a stable kernal.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is no problem with the sources...it depends on how they compile the kernel...that is causing the bugs!!
Sent from my GT-I9003 using XDA App
ronhoover88 said:
There is no problem with the sources...it depends on how they compile the kernel...that is causing the bugs!!
Sent from my GT-I9003 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do u mean that source code.is correct then skin said that it is not compatable & codes are older. I have used skin & amit's oc version. Both have sod problem Are they doing any mistake in compiling kernal?? Please clear doubt.
No what i meant was the sources which were released (could be) for the dev releases XXKP7/KP9/KPE may be after next official update...we could have GB sources!!
Sent from my GT-I9003 using XDA App
You should post here the kernel so more people will test it.... if you have solved SOD and oher issues i can say that you are great... BTW good work, with your explanation many other people can try...
Seems I didn't - phone didn't wake from standby this afternoon.
But I noticed, that it did respond. I could change speaker volume, the soft keys were lid - only the screen remained black. I'm getting really curious...
XDA_Bam said:
Seems I didn't - phone didn't wake from standby this afternoon.
But I noticed, that it did respond. I could change speaker volume, the soft keys were lid - only the screen remained black. I'm getting really curious...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I study on it.... the different between normal sleep and SOD is that, if you have a SOD, when you press the button to wakeup the phone the proc modemctl doesn't work and also the display driver cannot be activated.. i'm not sure if modemctl is responsable of turning up the LCD but this is what i found...
Another thing.... can i say now that must be something wrong in the sources?
Hmmm... I just checked: The last edit made in the GB kernel source files is from the 28. of June. There is no way, these are the XXKPH sources.
XDA_Bam said:
Hmmm... I just checked: The last edit made in the GB kernel source files is from the 28. of June. There is no way, these are the XXKPH sources.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wrote again to sammy;
Here my 1st email:
Hi again. I apologize but i have to ask something else.
I try again to build the kernel with the KPH source and i have the same issue (some time cannot wake - up from lock - sleep).
I follow perfectly the guide on kernel compilation so i really don't understand why that issue happen.
I have to insist on the fact that the source is not completely updated or maybe i'm doing something wrong.
I'm saying that the source are not updated cause the issue is part of precedent GB release but not of KPH.
Wish that you check again and report me if i have to do something else.
Thanks again
... they didn't answer so i wrote another:
Hi, i'm sorry but i have to write again. I tryed many times to compile a working kernel and what i build works correctly except that sometime the phone cannnot wakeup from sleep.... we ( me and other xda members) call this SOD. Also other members have compiled the kernel with your source and all have the same problem.
Please, check the source, they cannot be for the XXKPH FW. Or, at least, show us how to solve our issue.
THIS IS THE ANSWER:
Thank you for your continuous interest in our product.
This web site is intended to provide Open Source Software used in our product.
As mentioned previous mail, some of samsung proprietary codes are not included in the kernel. (codes that are not affected GPL - loadable modules) Please understand we do not guarantee opensource code is executable in target device.
We are sorry for not giving you an correct anwser upto your satisfaction.
Please accept our apology for not being able to handle your request up to your satisfaction.
Best Regards
You may find the source code
and if someone can explain me the meaning of "You may find the source code" woud be great....
XDA_Bam said:
Hmmm... I just checked: The last edit made in the GB kernel source files is from the 28. of June. There is no way, these are the XXKPH sources.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
xcuseme bro... 28 June = KPH? Can you explain better?
Skin1980 said:
xcuseme bro... 28 June = KPH? Can you explain better?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
These are old sources for XXKPE and below builds and not for XXKPH i guess coz XXKPH was built in august
We better wait for next official GB release and hope they release latest sorce codes...
You better continue with your OC kernel for froyo now...
Sent from my GT-I9003 using XDA App
When i send source codes to doomlord related to usb otg he also mentioned that 'source codes are always present some what in broken form. They never provide complete source code. We have to manage with that'.
May be doomlord know better about this matter.
Mother effin sammy. Proprietary? it's not even proprietary information that we're asking for. We are just asking complete source codes that function properly. Is it something that they own that makes fix for the SOD? I freakingly don't believe so? Can someone pm me their email address?
go to samsung opensource, search for i9003, then send a message
ronhoover88 said:
These are old sources for XXKPE and below builds and not for XXKPH i guess coz XXKPH was built in august
We better wait for next official GB release and hope they release latest sorce codes...
You better continue with your OC kernel for froyo now...
Sent from my GT-I9003 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Everyone of us might write to sammy... for the kernel i'm sorry but i really don't intend to go back to froyo.... haven't enouth time....
I have a suggestion. We have 3-4 gb releases present with us by samsung. Firs gb source was facing SOD problem a lot. But after that in later version till kph they removed problem successful. Can we compare those kernals & find the differce & come to know what exact changes they have made in kernal so that they reached to stable kernal of kph.
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!).
Can anyone extract boot.img of any Jelly Bean Based ROM & give kernel to me? (ParanoidAndroid would be better )
I wonder why would you need that.
I have really bad upload speed, so it would be hard for me.
Sent from my SGH-I997 using xda app-developers app
The kernel is the same for all JB roms. PA is the same as CM etc. Can't imagine what you need it for or why you can't just download a package and extract it, but I'll attach it here anyway..
Low Bandwidth
zpzp96 said:
I wonder why would you need that.
I have really bad upload speed, so it would be hard for me.
Sent from my SGH-I997 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Whizzpopper said:
The kernel is the same for all JB roms. PA is the same as CM etc. Can't imagine what you need it for or why you can't just download a package and extract it, but I'll attach it here anyway..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm on low bandwidth. & i needed kernel not boot.img. Well, thanks for boot.img
P.S. I need it for compiling PA 2.57 for infuse 4G
i to am wondering why you need the kernel...
samsung boot.img are unlike others, and there isn't tool that i know of that will extract it for you...there is actually no known way to me to extract it...there is also no known way to re inject it into a boot.img...only thing i can think of that might work is to compile a new boot.img from source and use the kernel as a prebuilt...idk if that would work though
anyways if you want the kernel alone your gonna need someone to build it from source and send you the proper file as it cant be extracted as far as i know...then agai its been a while since ive tinkered with things
mg2195 said:
i to am wondering why you need the kernel...
samsung boot.img are unlike others, and there isn't tool that i know of that will extract it for you...there is actually no known way to me to extract it...there is also no known way to re inject it into a boot.img...only thing i can think of that might work is to compile a new boot.img from source and use the kernel as a prebuilt...idk if that would work though
anyways if you want the kernel alone your gonna need someone to build it from source and send you the proper file as it cant be extracted as far as i know...then agai its been a while since ive tinkered with things
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm from Galaxy Fit Forum. I'm compiling PA for infuse 4G, I took CM 10 device config from GitHub. Kernel is not there. So it is stopping d compiling.
AFAIK we need kernel file in device config. During building it uses kernel & compiles boot.img & include it into .zip
RishabhAd said:
I'm from Galaxy Fit Forum. I'm compiling PA for infuse 4G, I took CM 10 device config from GitHub. Kernel is not there. So it is stopping d compiling.
AFAIK we need kernel file in device config. During building it uses kernel & compiles boot.img & include it into .zip
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Have a look at scotthartbti's github. He has cm, pa, and his own build.. Great dev.
There you will find the kernel, aries-common, proprietary files, and device repos. I bet those are much up to date
Www.github.com/scotthartbti
this is just a demo of a kernel based on quarx 3.0.8 kernel sources,maybe later i'll try to merge several fixes or something but till then lets say i've reached a small milestone like finishing to compile this kernel,booting it up,take some screenshots from it.
known bugs,just like initial quarxs or blenchose commits.
Warning:flash at your own responsability,works only with cm 10.1 under boot options by ticking 2ndboot and ticking adb disable
link to kernel:http://www.mediafire.com/?vdjoj438tlvz2lw
NOTE:kernel sources are based on quarx repo on github:https://github.com/Quarx2k/jordan-kernel
What's this? A fix for CM10.1 23/01?
I think it's a 3.0 kernel... so not a fix.
i think , quarx2k also made many changes with his CM 10.1-3.0 branch which corresponds to the 3.0 kernel ..( eg - hwcomposer sources)
so it will be better if u can compile and upload both ROM + KERNEL package in order to have maximum working efficiency
Shubhamqweasd said:
i think , quarx2k also made many changes with his CM 10.1-3.0 branch which corresponds to the 3.0 kernel ..( eg - hwcomposer sources)
so it will be better if u can compile and upload both ROM + KERNEL package in order to have maximum working efficiency
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you're right,because i could not boot this kernel on 4.1.2 so tried with 4.2.1 without adb manual boot,the difference is that i added forced module unloading and allow old eabi binaries to run with this kernel trying to get some backwards compatibility thus my conclusion is that either this kernel needs scratch bins in the os for propper functioning
rodrigoswz said:
What's this? A fix for CM10.1 23/01?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
nope,my bad to mention that is an kernel build on quarx repo
You know opening a new thread was unnecessary as we already have a 3.0 kernel thread and CM10.1 also.... BTW the kernel and CM10.1 are both easily compiled if you know what you're doing
Let's Go ^_^
Kayant said:
You know opening a new thread was unnecessary as we already have a 3.0 kernel thread and CM10.1 also.... BTW the kernel and CM10.1 are both easily compiled if you know what you're doing
Let's Go ^_^
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The thread is already reported
Sent from my MB526 using xda premium
nogoodusername said:
The thread is already reported
Sent from my MB526 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thank you for your support nogood username,that helps alot and to what i can do for this comunity,for example my own kernel sources for linux kernel 3.7.5,as of this post was just an test to see if it works and 3.7.5 yup it likes the cpcap drivers and firmware,just some gpu issues to display under menuconfig
drunk_ryder24 said:
thank you for your support nogood username,that helps alot and to what i can do for this comunity,for example my own kernel sources for linux kernel 3.7.5,as of this post was just an test to see if it works and 3.7.5 yup it likes the cpcap drivers and firmware,just some gpu issues to display under menuconfig
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I appreciate your work, and I'm not the one that reported (as far as I remember)
Sent from my MB526 using xda premium
nogoodusername said:
I appreciate your work, and I'm not the one that reported (as far as I remember)
Sent from my MB526 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
maybe i started wrong but my intention was to give some help for the comunity,as for my attempt on kernel 3.7.5:bump cant port sgx drivers,got cpcap to show up in menuconfig even mapphone but its like impossible to show up,tried a workaround with similar devices to get the gpu drivers but no chance
drunk_ryder24 said:
maybe i started wrong but my intention was to give some help for the comunity,as for my attempt on kernel 3.7.5:bump cant port sgx drivers,got cpcap to show up in menuconfig even mapphone but its like impossible to show up,tried a workaround with similar devices to get the gpu drivers but no chance
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for your efforts I think I was the one that reported it can't remember now ..... The reason I did it was because like you said you're trying to port 3.7.5 which we already have thread for where you cab discuss about porting 3.0.0 kernels
Some advice and questions......
I was wondering why are you trying to port 3.7.5 which is not even on any other android device yet??
IMO I think a higher version of the 3.0 base kernel is not needed as am sure most of the new things in it would not benefit us as we probably couldn't use it anyway since we have old drivers, old cpu/gpu etc.....
Getting it to show up in defconfig is not the hard part you can activate anything you want from there they are just the configuring files the hard part is configuring the activated drivers for the defy which requires dev work and debugging just look Quark's commits
I think what we have is fine and I don't think anything much higher would be any benefit for us also we have older drivers and the things we need for 4.2 to work properly are in 3.0.8 like the new wifi drivers maybe Quarx will update it to a higher minor version later like he did with 2.6.32.9 to 2.6.32.60......
Don't worry yourself to much there are many other things you can do to help us in the defy community. This is not worth your time trust me from experience :cyclops:
Btw the menuconfig iust activates the stuff you want for your device and mapphone_defconfig is where all the options you picked from menuconfig is stored. Each defconfig is different as they are specify to one device.
Kayant said:
Thanks for your efforts I think I was the one that reported it can't remember now ..... The reason I did it was because like you said you're trying to port 3.7.5 which we already have thread for where you cab discuss about porting 3.0.0 kernels
Some advice and questions......
I was wondering why are you trying to port 3.7.5 which is not even on any other android device yet??
IMO I think a higher version of the 3.0 base kernel is not needed as am sure most of the new things in it would not benefit us as we probably couldn't use it anyway since we have old drivers, old cpu/gpu etc.....
Getting it to show up in defconfig is not the hard part you can activate anything you want from there they are just the configuring files the hard part is configuring the activated drivers for the defy which requires dev work and debugging just look Quark's commits
I think what we have is fine and I don't think anything much higher would be any benefit for us also we have older drivers and the things we need for 4.2 to work properly are in 3.0.8 like the new wifi drivers maybe Quarx will update it to a higher minor version later like he did with 2.6.32.9 to 2.6.32.60......
Don't worry yourself to much there are many other things you can do to help us in the defy community. This is not worth your time trust me from experience :cyclops:
Btw the menuconfig iust activates the stuff you want for your device and mapphone_defconfig is where all the options you picked from menuconfig is stored. Each defconfig is different as they are specify to one device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thats the whole point,everithing gets trouc the cross compiler even battery and every hw aspect for defy,but cant seem to get sgx drivers on it it boots but only backlight flickers,also the importance of this is that one day we might bump in a problem like this(maybe future android versions will use kernel 3.7.5 as default)and my opinion is that we should have some widen experience about it in any way possible
Kayant said:
Thanks for your efforts I think I was the one that reported it can't remember now ..... The reason I did it was because like you said you're trying to port 3.7.5 which we already have thread for where you cab discuss about porting 3.0.0 kernels
Some advice and questions......
I was wondering why are you trying to port 3.7.5 which is not even on any other android device yet??
IMO I think a higher version of the 3.0 base kernel is not needed as am sure most of the new things in it would not benefit us as we probably couldn't use it anyway since we have old drivers, old cpu/gpu etc.....
Getting it to show up in defconfig is not the hard part you can activate anything you want from there they are just the configuring files the hard part is configuring the activated drivers for the defy which requires dev work and debugging just look Quark's commits
I think what we have is fine and I don't think anything much higher would be any benefit for us also we have older drivers and the things we need for 4.2 to work properly are in 3.0.8 like the new wifi drivers maybe Quarx will update it to a higher minor version later like he did with 2.6.32.9 to 2.6.32.60......
Don't worry yourself to much there are many other things you can do to help us in the defy community. This is not worth your time trust me from experience :cyclops:
Btw the menuconfig iust activates the stuff you want for your device and mapphone_defconfig is where all the options you picked from menuconfig is stored. Each defconfig is different as they are specify to one device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
and how is that a problem if someone wants to attempt a higher version kernel?
if there is no benefit then there is no loss either
I understand your point and even I know nothing is impossible.
BUT, there has to be a logic in things that you are doing, isn't it? Believe me, Nobody is discouraging him. Anyways, its a matter of understanding and not a debate.
FYI and to my knowledge, very few devices like xperia T/V has kernel 3.4
abhifx said:
and how is that a problem if someone wants to attempt a higher version kernel?
if there is no benefit then there is no loss either
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Like brajesh.sharma87 said am not trying to discourage him anything am just giving him some advice. This is mainly just my opinion based on experiences I had trying to port the newer wifi drivers from 3.0 base to our 2.6 kernel..... he doesn't have to listen to what am saying.
Like brajesh.sharma87 said it's matter of knowledge because the Linux kernel changes so much between versions and the work Quarx has done on the 3.0.8 base may become outdated and needs to be changed to get it to work for the new base.
Am just trying to put things into prospective as I think it's not worth his time and effort trying to port a higher version kernel without good knowledge and experience on kernel porting. Again that's for him to decide.
Drunk_ryder24 if you still want to try here are is something you can do that may help -
If you haven't already tried this but try cherry-picking Quarx's commits from the p-android-omap3-3.0 branch since the code is related to the defy but keep in mind not all of Quarx's work may work on the new base.
Kayant said:
Like brajesh.sharma87 said am not trying to discourage him anything am just giving him some advice. This is mainly just my opinion based on experiences I had trying to port the newer wifi drivers from 3.0 base to our 2.6 kernel..... he doesn't have to listen to what am saying.
Like brajesh.sharma87 said it's matter of knowledge because the Linux kernel changes so much between versions and the work Quarx has done on the 3.0.8 base may become outdated and needs to be changed to get it to work for the new base.
Am just trying to put things into prospective as I think it's not worth his time and effort trying to port a higher version kernel without good knowledge and experience on kernel porting. Again that's for him to decide.
Drunk_ryder24 if you still want to try here are is something you can do that may help -
If you haven't already tried this but try cherry-picking Quarx's commits from the p-android-omap3-3.0 branch since the code is related to the defy but keep in mind not all of Quarx's work may work on the new base.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well ive done cherry picking from quarx repo and i must say that quarx done an excelent job compiling the modules since they are recognized and compiled by the toolchain with no major errors,just a few ignorable errors,boy quarx must have nerves of steel to bare so much time in developing from scratch,oh btw i will post this as a reply in 4.1.2 tread,ive mixed kernel zimage and ramdisk of quarx 2.6.32.60 after applying sevenrock's kernel 2.6.32.9-the whole point is that it might have been something changed in either ril or wifi module cause 2.6.32.60 seems just a little laggy but no ringtone bug or reboots by this method
drunk_ryder24 said:
well ive done cherry picking from quarx repo and i must say that quarx done an excelent job compiling the modules since they are recognized and compiled by the toolchain with no major errors,just a few ignorable errors,boy quarx must have nerves of steel to bare so much time in developing from scratch,oh btw i will post this as a reply in 4.1.2 tread,ive mixed kernel zimage and ramdisk of quarx 2.6.32.60 after applying sevenrock's kernel 2.6.32.9-the whole point is that it might have been something changed in either ril or wifi module cause 2.6.32.60 seems just a little laggy but no ringtone bug or reboots by this method
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That sounds good am I bit surprised it worked so well with not that much errors but thats's good Yh I know Quarx is unstoppable and good luck with the project ..... If you need any more advice or help just shoot me up with a pm and I will see what I can do
kayant said:
that sounds good am i bit surprised it worked so well with not that much errors but thats's good yh i know quarx is unstoppable and good luck with the project :d..... If you need any more advice or help just shoot me up with a pm and i will see what i can do
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thanks for your support,its wellcomed
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.