Hi good people of N7 land,
I wanted to ask if it's possible to make keys get detected at boot-time so that a certain function is carried out. If so how?
For example:
The N7 is booting up. I press the Vol + key, and due to a script executed by the init.delta.rc, /system is mounted to a IMG file in the sdcard. A dual-boot mod.
I also ask if this is the best way to do this, and please for the love of God, don't point me to MultiROM. I want to work on my own mod.
I expect helpful answers. And if you can't answer my question, don't even bother posting here.
Although this is a question, this is more dev-related than anything I've encountered in the Q/A section. So I thought of posting it here.
Please move this if this is not the right place, and accept my apologies.
sgt. meow
I don't think this is possible using just some script - init has no way to get input events from keys, so you would have to either edit the init binary or use exec init command.
You could use it to run another binary, which would check if volwhatever is pressed and either did nothing or did the dual-boot stuff.
It depends on when you want to check for the keypress, because if it is after the /system partition is mounted, you could use busybox and run bash script, otherwise it would have to be real binary, because when init is started, you have pretty much "just" kernel running and no userspace.
Or you could pack busybox to boot.img, but if you can code, the binary is pretty easy to make.
@up
Exactly the kind of answer I was hoping to find. Sucks to realize that I still don't know a lot of coding. But I'm willing to learn if you could point me to the right direction.
sgt. meow said:
Hi good people of N7 land,
I wanted to ask if it's possible to make keys get detected at boot-time so that a certain function is carried out. If so how?
For example:
The N7 is booting up. I press the Vol + key, and due to a script executed by the init.delta.rc, /system is mounted to a IMG file in the sdcard. A dual-boot mod.
I also ask if this is the best way to do this, and please for the love of God, don't point me to MultiROM. I want to work on my own mod.
I expect helpful answers. And if you can't answer my question, don't even bother posting here.
Although this is a question, this is more dev-related than anything I've encountered in the Q/A section. So I thought of posting it here.
Please move this if this is not the right place, and accept my apologies.
sgt. meow
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The first idea that comes to my mind would be to code a simple no-UI app which would use a Service executed by a BroadCastReceiver set to BOOT_COMPLETED.
Then, when triggered (=at boot-time), the service would wait for the user to press a defined key (i.e : volume up). When the service receives the key press, it would mount /system or whatever you wanna do, then stop running (so that other volume up presses don't trigger this event again).
The code could be something like :
Your AndroidManifest.xml :
Code:
< ?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
< manifest xmlns:android="http://schemas.android.com/apk/res/android"
package="com.sgtmeow.boot.service"
android:versionCode="1"
android:versionName="1.0">
< uses-permission android:name="android.permission.RECEIVE_BOOT_COMPLETED" />
< application android:icon="@drawable/icon" android:label="@string/app_name">
< service android:name=".BootService">
< intent-filter>
< action
android:name = "com.sgtmeow.boot.service.BootService">
< /action>
< /intent-filter>
< /service>
< receiver android:name=".BootReceiver">
< intent-filter>
< action
android:name ="android.intent.action.BOOT_COMPLETED">
< /action>
< /intent-filter>
< /receiver>
< /application>
< uses-sdk android:minSdkVersion="8"
android:targetSdkVersion="17"android:targetSdkVersion="17" />
< /manifest>
BootReceiver.java :
Code:
package com.sgtmeow.boot.service;
import android.content.BroadcastReceiver;
import android.content.Context;
import android.content.Intent;
public class BootDemoReceiver extends BroadcastReceiver {
@Override
public void onReceive(final Context context, final Intent bootintent) {
Intent mServiceIntent = new Intent();
mServiceIntent.setAction("com.sgtmeow.boot.service.BootService");
context.startService(mServiceIntent);
}
}
BootService.java
Code:
package com.sgtmeow.boot.service;
import java.io.DataOutputStream;
import android.app.Service;
import android.content.Intent;
import android.os.IBinder;
import android.util.Log;
import android.view.KeyEvent;
import com.sgtmeow.boot.service.BootReceiver;
public class BootService extends Service {
Runtime mRuntime;
Process mProcess = null;
DataOutputStream mOutput = null;
@Override
public IBinder onBind(final Intent intent) {
return null;
}
@Override
public void onCreate() {
super.onCreate();
}
public boolean onKeyDown(int keyCode, KeyEvent event) {
super.onKeyDown(keyCode, event);
if (keyCode == KeyEvent.KEYCODE_VOLUME_UP) {
mountSystem();
Log.w("SGT.MEOW", "Volume Up has been pressed");
return true;
}
return true;
}
public void onStartCommand(final Intent intent, final int startId) {
super.onStartCommand(intent, startId, startId);
mountSystem();
}
private void mountSystem() {
Runtime.getRuntime();
// The service is now started, ask for root and mount /system using
// busybox (or not)
try {
mProcess = mRuntime.exec("su");
mOutput = new DataOutputStream(mProcess.getOutputStream());
mOutput.writeBytes("busybox mount -o remount,rw /system");
mOutput.flush();
stopService(new Intent(BootService.this, BootReceiver.class));
} catch (Exception e) {
Log.e("SGT.MEOW", "An Error Has Occured", e);
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
EDIT : unfortunately after some research I found out that Services cannot act as an onKeyListener, you'll have to call an activity to actually listen to the keypress so maybe just a dialog or something, but you won't be able to do it completely UI-less this way, my bad.
This is not something i would attempt to if you dont know what your doing due to the chance of bricks. but your best bet would be to luanch a binary from early init in the ram disk
aaronpoweruser said:
This is not something i would attempt to if you dont know what your doing due to the chance of bricks. but your best bet would be to luanch a binary from early init in the ram disk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know how to launch the binary during init. The binary is the problem I am running into.
Thanks though.
You might want to take a look at how custom recoveries on the Xperia T handles the initial recovery vs. boot selection. On that device, there is no recovery partition, so a single kernel image must support both recovery and normal operation. The bootloader doesn't support an "enter recovery" poweron keycombo, so on the T there are some tricks so that at boot, it:
Sets the LED to purple
Waits 3 seconds or so
If the VolUp key is pressed during those 3 seconds, boot to recovery
Otherwise, boot normally
I believe the same approach is also used on the Xperia Z.
Maybe you could have a custom recovery that allows this? TWRP and CWM Touch both have source code available that you can check out so you can make your own recovery, which could allow booting of separate ROMS. Recoveries generally boot faster than full ROMs.
That's not what I was aiming to achieve. If I can manage to map the keys and find a way to detect them at boot-time, the rest is easy as pie. . Thanks though.
Entropy512 said:
You might want to take a look at how custom recoveries on the Xperia T handles the initial recovery vs. boot selection. On that device, there is no recovery partition, so a single kernel image must support both recovery and normal operation. The bootloader doesn't support an "enter recovery" poweron keycombo, so on the T there are some tricks so that at boot, it:
Sets the LED to purple
Waits 3 seconds or so
If the VolUp key is pressed during those 3 seconds, boot to recovery
Otherwise, boot normally
I believe the same approach is also used on the Xperia Z.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
sgt. meow said:
That's not what I was aiming to achieve. If I can manage to map the keys and find a way to detect them at boot-time, the rest is easy as pie. . Thanks though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
None of the phones made by Sony have a recovery partition so they have to use a work around to detect keys on boot up. This is what all Xperia devices do to get into recovery: on boot check to see if the desired key is being pressed and if it is unzip the recovery, if it isn't being pressed unzip the normal ramdisk. (I'll post the ramdisk here for you to see how everything works yourself) So with the Xperia Play CyanogenMod kernel that I have how it works is it has two .cpio files. One for the ramdisk and one for the recovery. It uses a .sh file in the sbin to check if keys are being pressed by using /dev/input/event# which in most cases is event1 for volume down (on Nexus 7 the is event0, event1, and event2. My guess is 0 = power button and one and two are vol + and vol -). It then has a link to the init.sh in the root of the ramdisk called init so that when the kernel starts and calls init it starts the script. So what you could do is the same but instead of having two .cpio files you could rename the init file to something else then place the script and link in your ramdisk so that when the key is pressed it calls both what you want to do and the rename init executable. (Not sure how well this would work this is just an idea, if not depending on what you want to do you can keep the compressed ramdisk idea...)
Here is a ramdisk of what I've been talking about that is pulled from my kernel (extracted from an already compiled kernel to make it easy read.):
Link
It's made for the Xperia Play so it also tries to start the LED and vibrator to tell you when to click the Vol - key so how you would tell people to click it on the Nexus 7 I'm not sure...probably just have to have people will just have to spam the key. If you have any questions feel free to ask or if this didn't help I'm sorry just an idea.
Also what it seems like you want to do with the dual boot mod being with the SDCard sounds a lot like what a guy named CosmicDan did on the Xperia Play. You had to change the updater-script in your flashable zip but it worked. Here is the thread: Turbo Kernel and the source code to his kernel: GitHub
I know what he did with his kernel. I am working on something similar to the HD2 dual boot method. Haven't had any success yet.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using xda app-developers app
sgt. meow said:
I know what he did with his kernel. I am working on something similar to the HD2 dual boot method. Haven't had any success yet.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hi! were you able to solve this?
thanks!
Related
https://android.clients.google.com/updates/signed-kila-ota-114235-prereq.TC4-RC19.zip
Not sure when this is from. I was tooling around trying to find a way to flash myself off of the RC29 test build that I stupidly put on. Stumbled across this. Tried to flash it over my RC29-Test, and it failed with the following error:
Code:
E:Failure at line 1:
assert file_contains(SYSTEM:build.prop", "test-keys"0 == "true" || file_contains
("SYSTEM:build.prop", "ro.build.fingerprint=tmobile/kila/dream/trout:1.0/
TC4-RC19/109652:user/ota-rel-keys,release-keys") == "true"
Installation aborted.
My build contains the following line:
Code:
ota-rel-keys,for-testing,release-keys
Let me know what y'all think.
I think its something good to add to my collection Thx
Darkrift said:
I think its something good to add to my collection Thx
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think it will be good for doing file diffs when we get to that point.
Thanks, It is good to have this...
Has anyone thought of trying to apply these updates to the RC1 from the emulator?
yeah, some guy named neoobs thought of it, not sure if he tried it yet though
Darkrift said:
yeah, some guy named neoobs thought of it, not sure if he tried it yet though
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If I knew how to apply them I would have tried... but how do you hold the home button and the power button on the emulator? LOL
can you mis-match specific files?
I wonder if you can mis-match specific files in the updates.
I.e I wonder if you copied an RC19 file and built a custom version - but also copied the signatures into the appropriate files - since the file is still signed and it would still verify, I think it would still work to grab old versions and mix in with new versions.
The usefullness of making a frankenbuild is probably "not much" - but perhaps if there is a vulnerable file in one version it could be injected into a later version.
RyeBrye said:
I wonder if you can mis-match specific files in the updates.
I.e I wonder if you copied an RC19 file and built a custom version - but also copied the signatures into the appropriate files - since the file is still signed and it would still verify, I think it would still work to grab old versions and mix in with new versions.
The usefullness of making a frankenbuild is probably "not much" - but perhaps if there is a vulnerable file in one version it could be injected into a later version.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That won't work because there are 2 files with signatures... one of which is signed in the other. So if you change the signature file it will not validate. Pretty smart if you ask me.
neoobs said:
That won't work because there are 2 files with signatures... one of which is signed in the other. So if you change the signature file it will not validate. Pretty smart if you ask me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't see where the one signs the other - the only META-INF file that is signed is the update-script that I can see in either file.
I do see in the code where it EXPLICITLY does NOT verify the .SF files however:
Code:
for (i = 0; i < mzZipEntryCount(pArchive); ++i) {
const ZipEntry *entry = mzGetZipEntryAt(pArchive, i);
UnterminatedString fn = mzGetZipEntryFileName(entry);
int len = mzGetZipEntryUncompLen(entry);
// Don't validate: directories, the manifest, *.RSA, and *.SF.
if (entry == mfEntry) {
LOGV("Skipping manifest %.*s\n", fn.len, fn.str);
} else if (fn.len > 0 && fn.str[fn.len-1] == '/' && len == 0) {
LOGV("Skipping directory %.*s\n", fn.len, fn.str);
} else if (!strncasecmp(fn.str, "META-INF/", 9) && (
!strncasecmp(fn.str + fn.len - 4, ".RSA", 4) ||
!strncasecmp(fn.str + fn.len - 3, ".SF", 3))) {
LOGV("Skipping signature %.*s\n", fn.len, fn.str);
} else {
unverified[i] = true;
totalBytes += len;
}
}
So I think it is entirely possible to swap in other files that are signed with the same key from an older version. If they change keys, I don't think it will work.
Another thought...
It doesn't make sense to me that the public key would be distributed along with the update - it looks like the phone is using the public key to verify the signed hashes - which is fine - they can see that the hashes were signed by the private-key pair of that RSA file...
But the .RSA is explicitly not verified, and I don't see in the verify.c file where it checks against any kind of keystore on the device...
I wonder if it is just checking that the files are signed, but not necessarily who they are signed by? Meaning - it's making sure the update hasn't been corrupted or tampered with - but not who made the update in the first place?
RyeBrye said:
I don't see where the one signs the other - the only META-INF file that is signed is the update-script that I can see in either file.
I do see in the code where it EXPLICITLY does NOT verify the .SF files however:
Code:
for (i = 0; i < mzZipEntryCount(pArchive); ++i) {
const ZipEntry *entry = mzGetZipEntryAt(pArchive, i);
UnterminatedString fn = mzGetZipEntryFileName(entry);
int len = mzGetZipEntryUncompLen(entry);
// Don't validate: directories, the manifest, *.RSA, and *.SF.
if (entry == mfEntry) {
LOGV("Skipping manifest %.*s\n", fn.len, fn.str);
} else if (fn.len > 0 && fn.str[fn.len-1] == '/' && len == 0) {
LOGV("Skipping directory %.*s\n", fn.len, fn.str);
} else if (!strncasecmp(fn.str, "META-INF/", 9) && (
!strncasecmp(fn.str + fn.len - 4, ".RSA", 4) ||
!strncasecmp(fn.str + fn.len - 3, ".SF", 3))) {
LOGV("Skipping signature %.*s\n", fn.len, fn.str);
} else {
unverified[i] = true;
totalBytes += len;
}
}
So I think it is entirely possible to swap in other files that are signed with the same key from an older version. If they change keys, I don't think it will work.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
in one of the SF's (Signature Files HAHA never caught that till now) It has the SHA1-digest of the other. I believe it is Cert.sf, at the top it signs manifest.sf
This is why you can not alter the SF's at all because they both have all the files signed with one of them signing the other. Making it impossible to get around. And with SHA1 it just makes it hard to even think about it. Might as well do as others have said and find exploits.
RyeBrye said:
It doesn't make sense to me that the public key would be distributed along with the update - it looks like the phone is using the public key to verify the signed hashes - which is fine - they can see that the hashes were signed by the private-key pair of that RSA file...
But the .RSA is explicitly not verified, and I don't see in the verify.c file where it checks against any kind of keystore on the device...
I wonder if it is just checking that the files are signed, but not necessarily who they are signed by? Meaning - it's making sure the update hasn't been corrupted or tampered with - but not who made the update in the first place?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I like that idea... anyone know how to sign the files with your own rsa?
RyeBrye said:
It doesn't make sense to me that the public key would be distributed along with the update - it looks like the phone is using the public key to verify the signed hashes - which is fine - they can see that the hashes were signed by the private-key pair of that RSA file...
But the .RSA is explicitly not verified, and I don't see in the verify.c file where it checks against any kind of keystore on the device...
I wonder if it is just checking that the files are signed, but not necessarily who they are signed by? Meaning - it's making sure the update hasn't been corrupted or tampered with - but not who made the update in the first place?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Aperantly not many people know about private-public key cryptography.
Please, if you have the time, wiki private-public key cryptography or download the podcast from TWiT (This Week in Tech) Security now on that subject (episode ~15 or so, it was early on).
A simple explination:
Two keys are generated at random (or user input through an algorithm). A private key and a public key. The private key is used to encrypt files an ONLY the public key can decrypt it. IT IS NOT REVERSABLE.
The public key can be "publicly known", hence the name. It actually has to either be with the files or on the device that needs to unencrypt said files.
Now here's the awsome part a brute force attack on SHA1 would take millions of years to crack ON ONE KEY. (Much more detail to that)
Another added mesure of security is hash checking. Run a file through an algorythm and you get an unique ID for that file. You change as much as ONE BIT on that file and the output of the algorythm is COMPLETLY different.
Not imposible to crack, imposible to stay alive long enough to see it done.
Thats the Thing with PKey and Private Key and it Impossible to crack unless the Boot loader is not checking for Signing Authority.
Please Understand Signing a File and Encrypting the File is Different thing we have G1 Update.zip as Normal Zip file but The moment we change any byte in Zip Store the Checking gets failed. if G1 Boot loader is really not checking Singer and only rely on Signed Object whosmever may have signed then we got the Solution but i dont either HTC or Google is that foolish to do that.
We must have to look at G1 Source code for Details.
I think what cmonex and Olipro does is better. Get Source code of Boot loader Recompile it with disabled Signing Funda. Load the Boot Loader into Memory and that Jump to that Location. here Root access to Device is Necesory once we are Succefull to run Patched Bootloader from Memory Flashing Customised Image may not be a Problem
snoslicer8 said:
https://android.clients.google.com/updates/signed-kila-ota-114235-prereq.TC4-RC19.zip
Not sure when this is from. I was tooling around trying to find a way to flash myself off of the RC29 test build that I stupidly put on. Stumbled across this. Tried to flash it over my RC29-Test, and it failed with the following error:
Code:
E:Failure at line 1:
assert file_contains(SYSTEM:build.prop", "test-keys"0 == "true" || file_contains
("SYSTEM:build.prop", "ro.build.fingerprint=tmobile/kila/dream/trout:1.0/
TC4-RC19/109652:user/ota-rel-keys,release-keys") == "true"
Installation aborted.
My build contains the following line:
Code:
ota-rel-keys,for-testing,release-keys
Let me know what y'all think.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
can anyone post this file somewhere i can get it? it's not there anymore. My PC no longer see's my device, i'm wondering if flashing back to RC19 will work.
canOpoop said:
can anyone post this file somewhere i can get it? it's not there anymore. My PC no longer see's my device, i'm wondering if flashing back to RC19 will work.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First, you can't flash the RC19 if you have RC29.
Second, what do you mean your PC doesn't see your device? If your talking about the SD card through the phone, at the top of your phone when you have connected, you will have a notification at the top of your phone.
Either drag the notification bar or press menu on your home screen and click on Notifications. Select the USB selectionan it will prompt you, select "Mount"
quedijo said:
First, you can't flash the RC19 if you have RC29.
Second, what do you mean your PC doesn't see your device? If your talking about the SD card through the phone, at the top of your phone when you have connected, you will have a notification at the top of your phone.
Either drag the notification bar or press menu on your home screen and click on Notifications. Select the USB selectionan it will prompt you, select "Mount"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First: check this out. http://www.blogsdna.com/1256/how-to-quickly-update-t1-mobile-g1-phone-firmware-manually-rc29.htm
i'm thinking if i get the file (RC19) i can flashback.
Second: It had worked before (before the OTA update). I have tried 3 different PC's 2 different USB cables, REFlash of RC29, and a hard reset (to Factory). i do not ever get a notification to mount in Notification bar. Windows throws out the error "One of the USB Devices attached to this computer has malfuctioned, and windows does not recognize it." And yes i have tried different USB ports.
i'm open to any more ideas...
canOpoop said:
First: check this out. http://www.blogsdna.com/1256/how-to-quickly-update-t1-mobile-g1-phone-firmware-manually-rc29.htm
i'm thinking if i get the file (RC19) i can flashback.
Second: It had worked before (before the OTA update). I have tried 3 different PC's 2 different USB cables, REFlash of RC29, and a hard reset (to Factory). i do not ever get a notification to mount in Notification bar. Windows throws out the error "One of the USB Devices attached to this computer has malfuctioned, and windows does not recognize it." And yes i have tried different USB ports.
i'm open to any more ideas...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Use anycut and create a shortcut to the activity "SD Card" and see what it says when you open it.
neoobs said:
Use anycut and create a shortcut to the activity "SD Card" and see what it says when you open it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Tmobile is replacing device. I should get a new on Tuesday the 11th. they are out of stock.
Here's the thread for tech details. No questions in this thread, please.
My input:
Rooting the Rogers Dream
Download the tools required
Extract to anywhere on your computer.
Place update.zip on the root of your sd card.
Reboot the device into SPL (power off, hold camera button, boot, press "back" or "send" [check prompt on device] to enter "FASTBOOT" instead of "HBOOT")
Code:
fastboot boot recovery.img
Apply update, wait until phone idles, press HOME+BACK, it will reboot, finish writing hboot, then reboot again into recovery by itself. Do not interrupt it at all until it's done.
HOME+BACK to reboot into regular device.
Power off, hold camera, boot, go back into FASTBOOT
Code:
fastboot flash recovery recovery.img
Code:
fastboot flash boot boot.img
Code:
fastboot reboot
that's it!
Rooting the HTC Magic / Sapphire: http://android-dls.com/wiki/index.php?title=Magic_Rooting
Developer notes (for devs and rom builders):
Dev's (cyanogen, i'm looking at you [you requested this info ]) you can download my hacked up mkbootimg and some other tools here: http://www.mediafire.com/?njl4x5ozldm
these are all baked up by me in a flurry of rush and etc, so excuse the sloppiness
You will have 2 tools to use now, compileboot and compilebootmagic.
compileboot creates a regular g1 boot img (and the vodafone magic as well supports these old boot locations)
compilebootmagic has 2 options.
compilebootmagic -1 will create an image supported by the HTC Dream (rogers), all new magic devices, and most likely the hero and etc (these new locations are based on ram size pretty much)
compilebootmagic -2 will create an image with user supplied arguments (it says dream but disregard it, i made it before finding out the new codes matched -1)
Discovering new boot locations!
This is a fun (and easy) bit.
Just grab a boot.img from the device you'd like to learn about, and follow the chart below:
Code:
0xf-0xc (backwards): kernel addr
0x17-0x14 (backwards): ramdisk addr
0x1f-0x1c (backwards): second addr
0x23-0x20 (backwards): tags addr
you can also use this script (linux users):
Code:
#!/usr/bin/php
<?php
function bootloc($file) {
$handle = fopen($file, 'rb');
$data = stream_get_contents($handle);
fclose($handle);
$text = "";
for($a = 0; $a < 8; $a++) {
$text .= $data[$a];
}
if($text == "ANDROID!") {
$out = sprintf("Kernel addr : 0x%02x%02x%02x%02x", ord($data[hexdec('f')]), ord($data[hexdec('e')]), ord($data[hexdec('d')]), ord($data[hexdec('c')]))."\n";
$out .= sprintf("Ramdisk addr: 0x%02x%02x%02x%02x", ord($data[hexdec('17')]), ord($data[hexdec('16')]), ord($data[hexdec('15')]), ord($data[hexdec('14')]))."\n";
$out .= sprintf("Second addr : 0x%02x%02x%02x%02x", ord($data[hexdec('1f')]), ord($data[hexdec('1e')]), ord($data[hexdec('1d')]), ord($data[hexdec('1c')]))."\n";
$out .= sprintf("tags addr : 0x%02x%02x%02x%02x", ord($data[hexdec('23')]), ord($data[hexdec('22')]), ord($data[hexdec('21')]), ord($data[hexdec('20')]))."\n";
return $out;
} else {
return false;
}
}
if($argc < 2) {
echo "Usage:\n";
echo $argv[0]." <img file/s>\n";
echo "example:\n";
echo $argv[0]." boot.img boot-new.img recovery.img recovery-new.img\n";
} else {
for($a = 1; $a < $argc; $a++) {
$out = bootloc($argv[$a]);
if($out) {
echo $argv[$a],":\n";
echo $out;
} else {
echo $argv[$a]," is not a boot/recovery img!\n";
}
}
}
usage: bootlocations.php <boot.img, more than one can be supplied>
example: bootlocations.php boot.img boot-new.img
NOTE: i will try to keep adding to this until it's full. any information that isn't in here, feel free to request via pm.
Reserved for future postings
Once again, great work Haykuro
Okay, I see the trickery now.
Thanks for this info, I'll build a version of CM for Rogers later
Another thing.. Does this device use the same libhtc_ril.so as the G1 ROM and/or does it need different RIL properties in build.prop? I am thinking it does because of the different radio, but I've only seen G1 "ports" of the ROM.
cyanogen said:
Another thing.. Does this device use the same libhtc_ril.so as the G1 ROM and/or does it need different RIL properties in build.prop? I am thinking it does because of the different radio, but I've only seen G1 "ports" of the ROM.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
lol the g1 ports of the rom never changed the lib much (if not at all [do an md5sum ;P])
the phone is practically identical to ours, aside some physical things (crystals, etc)
thx for the tools
cheers
Thanks again Haykuro! This is great information.
thank you for this! Hopefully intructions on how to root the mytouch will come soon!
Tried to make a version of CM-3.6 for the Rogers Dream and it isn't booting according to the testers.. Doesn't even get adbd started.
I set the boot.img up properly.
Code:
Kernel addr : 0x19208000
Ramdisk addr: 0x1a200000
Second addr : 0x1a100000
tags addr : 0x19200100
Something else has to be different, or that device hates my kernel.
EDIT:
Haykuro sent me the kernel config from a running Dream device, and there are some options enabled in it that aren't part of any Linux kernel.
CONFIG_MSM_AMSS_SUPPORT_256MB_EBI1=y
CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_MSM7K=y
So we are going to need whatever they patched in to be able to build custom kernels. Interestingly, the device is also using cpufreq settings of 384MHz/528MHz by default.
Great job haykuro, but ive been hearing reports that you cannot flash any rom (only rogers based roms) Any news on this? Thanks again!
I commend your turn around, Steve, and am quite impressed.
cyanogen said:
EDIT:
Haykuro sent me the kernel config from a running Dream device, and there are some options enabled in it that aren't part of any Linux kernel.
CONFIG_MSM_AMSS_SUPPORT_256MB_EBI1=y
CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_MSM7K=y
So we are going to need whatever they patched in to be able to build custom kernels. Interestingly, the device is also using cpufreq settings of 384MHz/528MHz by default.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is my stumbling block too. It's not just those two options, config diff is quite significant. I've sent a couple of emails to htc kernel devs a few weeks ago, but got no response. HTC must release the patched source, though, to comply with GPL2. I'm not sure what's be the best way to persuade them to.
Can't ender code in SPL
Once I boot into SPL how do I enter the code. nothing happens when I press the keys on my keyboard.
stongest said:
Once I boot into SPL how do I enter the code. nothing happens when I press the keys on my keyboard.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow this was pretty dead and you just revived it from its slumber among the dead.
Theres no code to enter
You have to install once you get a custom rec.
Ace42 said:
Wow this was pretty dead and you just revived it from its slumber among the dead.
Theres no code to enter
You have to install once you get a custom rec.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
At least he searched for it
stongest said:
Once I boot into SPL how do I enter the code. nothing happens when I press the keys on my keyboard.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
through adb
ok.. I am getting closer to understanding this!
But, still no luck.
I downloaded this file
http://sapphire-port-dream.googlecode.com/files/spl-signed.zip
then saved it to my SD card and renamed it to update.zip
Then I do this
Reboot the device into SPL (power off, hold camera button, boot, press "back" or "send" [check prompt on device] to enter "FASTBOOT" instead of "HBOOT")
and nothing happens.. any ideas?
You install .zip things like that, like the SPL and new roms in the recovery mode, not bootloader. You'll start up with home + power to get to that.
However, given that you don't know this yet, I'd spend a *lot* more time getting comfortable with the whole flashing roms/messing with your phone stuff before installing that SPL, that's a pretty good way to brick your phone if you don't know a bit more about what you're doing.
Sorry for necro posting, i'm new to the whole rooting thing. My phone info is:
Firmware: 1.5
Baseband Version: 62.59S.20.23U_3.22.26.17
Kernel Version: 2.6.27-d5acf552
Build Number: 1.89.631.1 146733 CL#94714
I have a rogers HTC dream for Canada.
What files do i exactly need, and once acquiring them I just follow the instructions in the first post?
Hi
i work on my first app, the info-part is finished. now i want add a simple question/answer-part. the first part with button for answers and questions works fine, but with the checkboxes i have some problems.
i want two or three solutions for one question, wich can be choose if i am click on one of these checkboxes. the answer is showing up in MessageBox and work so far, but the checkbox don't be cleared!?
What i have to do, to clear the checkbox. please help me! i don't know so much about the source-code c#, so every explanation will help me! Thanks!
xaml.cs
Code:
private void checkBox6_Checked(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
MessageBox.Show("Richtig!");
checkBox6.?? = checkBox6.??;
}
private void checkBox7_Checked(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
MessageBox.Show("Richtig!");
checkBox7.?? = checkBox7.??;
}
xaml
Code:
<TextBlock Height="73" HorizontalAlignment="Left" Margin="13,489,0,0" Name="DerTextblock13" VerticalAlignment="Top" TextWrapping="Wrap" Width="436" FontSize="22">Question?</TextBlock>
<CheckBox Content="YES" Height="72" HorizontalAlignment="Left" Margin="5,518,0,0" Name="checkBox6" VerticalAlignment="Top" Checked="checkBox6_Checked" />
<CheckBox Content="NO" Height="72" HorizontalAlignment="Right" Margin="0,518,18,0" Name="checkBox7" VerticalAlignment="Top" Checked="checkBox7_Checked" />
Just need to change the IsChecked property.
checkbox6.IsChecked = false;
hi
thanks for your comment.. i have read and search about "checkbox6.IsChecked = false;" and test it, but it doesn't work. i got this error in attached image.. checkbox6 is in content not available, but there is in content the checkbox6 (Name="checkbox6" and Checked="checkBox6_Checked")..
so i still don't know, why i get this error.. sorry for my stupid question..
Control names are case sensitive. It should be checkBox6.IsChecked = false;
oh man, what a stupid error.. thanks, case sensitive was the right keyword!
how can i change background-image for other xaml-site
hi
i don`t want open a new thread, so i ask here.
new problem! how can i change the background-image for an other xaml-site?
i searched a lot and find a lot, but nothing show me exactly how i can realize this.
in the source-code below, you see that i can change the background-image for example on mainpage.xaml.
Now i want integrate in my setting.xaml and settings.xaml.cs the same checkboxes to change the background-image on the mainpage.xaml.
What i have to do? Thanks for help!
xaml.cs
Code:
private void checkBox2_Checked(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
Uri uriR = new Uri("image/angler.png", UriKind.Relative);
BitmapImage imgSource = new BitmapImage(uriR);
this.imagechange.Source = imgSource;
checkBox1.IsChecked = false;
}
private void checkBox1_Checked(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
Uri uriR = new Uri("image/new-background.png", UriKind.Relative);
BitmapImage imgSource = new BitmapImage(uriR);
this.imagechange.Source = imgSource;
checkBox2.IsChecked = false;
}
xaml
Code:
<CheckBox Content="Hintergrund" Height="72" Margin="54,-33,0,0" Name="checkBox2" Checked="checkBox2_Checked" Width="163" FontSize="18" />
<CheckBox Content="Hintergrund 2" Height="72" Margin="0,-33,49,0" Name="checkBox1" Checked="checkBox1_Checked" Width="187" FontSize="18" />
Well done very good
Not sure if it's the best way, but one option would be to store the value you want to use in IsolatedStorageSettings. Then, when the page loads, it checks the value in ISS and applies that background (in its OnNavigatedTo event handler is probably best).
GoodDayToDie said:
Not sure if it's the best way, but one option would be to store the value you want to use in IsolatedStorageSettings. Then, when the page loads, it checks the value in ISS and applies that background (in its OnNavigatedTo event handler is probably best).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thanks, i have found a code to read an image in IsolatedStorage.. see below..
but i got a error.. i found a example-project, all works fine and i can read a image-file from IsolatedStorage. but in my app it doesn't work and i got these error..
also i had added the namespaces in xaml.cs
using System.IO.IsolatedStorage;
using System.IO;
xaml.cs
xaml-code
Code:
<Image x:Name="imagechange" Margin="30,62,38,204" Stretch="Fill" />
<Button Content="lesen" Height="72" HorizontalAlignment="Left" Margin="269,533,0,0" x:Name="lesen" VerticalAlignment="Top" Width="160" FontSize="19" Click="lesen_Click" />
vs 2010 are showing no faults in debugmodus! But if i click on button "lesen", i got the attached error. Please, where is the fault or what i have to do now?
does anyone has a idea about my described problem. sorry for my stupid questions, but that's all new for me and i want to learn it..
Do you have actual file "logo.jpg" on your ISF? Insert before opening:
if (myIsolatedStorage.FileExists("logo.jpg"))
{
... your code ...
sensboston said:
Do you have actual file "logo.jpg" on your ISF? Insert before opening:
if (myIsolatedStorage.FileExists("logo.jpg"))
{
... your code ...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hi
i had added your comment to source-code.. now, nothing happen, if i click on the button for reading the file from isolated storage..
how can i add the file "logo.jpg" to isolated storage?? i thought, i only have to put the file to my current project, like i did it with other images and then i can save or read the file to isolated storage.
I think this must be the fault. How can manage it? thanks..
Code:
private void lesen_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
BitmapImage bi = new BitmapImage();
using (IsolatedStorageFile myIsolatedStorage = IsolatedStorageFile.GetUserStoreForApplication())
{
if (myIsolatedStorage.FileExists("logo.jpg"))
using (IsolatedStorageFileStream fileStream = myIsolatedStorage.OpenFile("logo.jpg", FileMode.Open, FileAccess.Read))
{
bi.SetSource(fileStream);
this.imagechange.Height = bi.PixelHeight;
this.imagechange.Width = bi.PixelWidth;
}
}
this.imagechange.Source = bi;
}
jayjojayson said:
i had added your code in comment to source-code.. now, nothing happen, if i click on the button for reading the file from isolated storage..
how can i add the file "logo.jpg" to isolated storage??
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You may try to:
- download image from network and save to isf;
- copy from resource stream to isf;
- manually upload file to the app ISF using ISETool.exe or third-party tool.
jayjojayson said:
i thought, i only have to put the file to my current project, like i did it with other images and then i can save or read the file to isolated storage.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wrong assumption.
P.S. Try this (btw, it's a first google link!): http://technodave.wordpress.com/201...ge-for-local-html-content-on-windows-phone-7/
hi
thanks a lot, it works... the first comment you have written are right..
i only have to save it first to isolated storage, before i can read the file.
thanks for your explanation to add files to ISF.. i have serach for that topic, but found nothing that describe how to added to ISF.. thanks for the link... i will read this in the evening...
now i have to find out, how i can change a image on a other site(xaml). than i can change for example in my setting.xaml the background in the mainpage.xaml
every day i learn new things, that's really exciting...
jayjojayson said:
now i have to find out, how i can change a image on a other site(xaml). than i can change for example in my setting.xaml the background in the mainpage.xaml
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry, I didn't read the whole thread before answering; seems like you are digging in the wrong direction. You don't need to use ISF (but it was a good practice for you), all you need is just a dynamical binding.
I'm too lazy to type code sample for you but (he-he!), our good friend google.com returned a good link for you http://www.eugenedotnet.com/2011/05...-property-in-silverlight-and-windows-phone-7/
P.S. Experience to use google should be "the must" in developer's experience.
entry Text in new line
Hi
i use google, my best friend, for a lot of my questions. but sometimes i don't know the right searchkeywords to do what i want to do (like image binding).
i have a new small problem. in my app i have 4 textboxes, that i use to write in some data. These 4 textboxes, i write to isolated storage in a textfile and let them summarized showing up in a textblock. This works fine.
Now, if i want write a new entry, these entry is written directly after the first entry.
example like is insert in textblock
Code:
▷Text - Text - Text - Text| ▷Text - Text - Text - Text|
But i want that the entry is written in a new line? How can i do this?
example like i want it
Code:
▷Text - Text - Text - Text|
▷Text - Text - Text - Text|
i know that i can create new lines with \n , \r\n and Environment.NewLine.
Code:
IsolatedStorageFile myIsolatedStorage = IsolatedStorageFile.GetUserStoreForApplication();
//create new file
using (StreamWriter writeFile = new StreamWriter(new IsolatedStorageFileStream("fangbuch.txt", FileMode.Create, FileAccess.Write, myIsolatedStorage)))
{
string someTextData = text.Text + "▷" + datum.Text + " - " + fisch.Text + " - " + größe.Text + "cm" + " - " + gewicht.Text + "Kg" + " | " + "\r\n";
writeFile.WriteLine(someTextData);
writeFile.Close();
}
if i use one of the elements to create a new line, like is showing in code above, the new (second) entry overwrite the first entry. What can i do now? thanks for your help.
You're using FileMode.Create, which will overwrite an existing file. You need to either use FileMode.OpenOrCreate and then seek to the end of the file, or you need to use FileMode.Append (this is the preferred approach).
Additionally, the StreamWriter.WriteFile function automatically appends a newline for you. There's no need to have them manually placed at the end of your text string.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.io.filemode.aspx
Hi to everyone,
I would like to reply to this post about a force close entering the UsbSettings in broodRom RC5 rev 1 & 2(prerelease).
Specifically the exception is this: java.lang.RuntimeException: Unable to start activity ComponentInfo{com.android.settings/com.android.settings.UsbSettings}: java.lang.NumberFormatException: unable to parse '' as integer
Unfortunately I'm not able to post there since I've just registered my accout; I hope this is the best section to post and that someone will notice it anyway.
After a couple of hours of serious digging I found that the problem depends on the fact that build prop lacks:
Code:
persist.service.usb.setting=0
which sets the default mode (kies) for usb.
that value is requested by com.android.settings.UsbSettings.onCreate of Settings.apk
Code:
protected void onCreate(Bundle paramBundle)
{
super.onCreate(paramBundle);
int i = Integer.parseInt(SystemProperties.get("persist.service.usb.setting"));
this.mUSB_mode = i;
---cut---
restoring the above line in build prop fixes the issue!
yota73 said:
Hi to everyone,
I would like to reply to this post about a force close entering the UsbSettings in broodRom RC5 rev 1 & 2(prerelease).
Specifically the exception is this: java.lang.RuntimeException: Unable to start activity ComponentInfo{com.android.settings/com.android.settings.UsbSettings}: java.lang.NumberFormatException: unable to parse '' as integer
Unfortunately I'm not able to post there since I've just registered my accout; I hope this is the best section to post and that someone will notice it anyway.
After a couple of hours of serious digging I found that the problem depends on the fact that build prop lacks:
Code:
persist.service.usb.setting=0
which sets the default mode (kies) for usb.
that value is requested by com.android.settings.UsbSettings.onCreate of Settings.apk
Code:
protected void onCreate(Bundle paramBundle)
{
super.onCreate(paramBundle);
int i = Integer.parseInt(SystemProperties.get("persist.service.usb.setting"));
this.mUSB_mode = i;
---cut---
restoring the above line in build prop fixes the issue!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks! , I saw it before but didn't knew if this was the right fix^^
thanks for the solution..im sorry but im newbie but where to locate that in the script manager?im still learning about this android..thanks
The file is /system/build.prop, you need to be root to edit it and to mount /system read write.
Both things are enabled by default in broodrom, and any detail can be easily found by searching the forum.
Please note that this has nothing to do with scriptmanager and is best achieved though ADB.
If you have not the android SDK installed, maybe it would be better if you just wait Rev 2, which hopefully will integrate the fix
Colors fixes
Hi brood,
still posting here until I (if ever) reach 10 posts.
I've managed to fix color-issue (at least for most colors) in your rom by editing the twframework-res.apk.
It seems that samsung apps are using it instead of framework-res.apk.
The quickest way to improve the situation is modify .xmls that are using tw_color002 to use tw_color001 instead.
As you can see in /res/values/colors.xml tw_color002 is black while tw_color001 is white.
Obviously there is not one unique solution, but is more a matter of choosing the right palette to fit with the dark theme, either by changing color reference in each xml or by changing them all at once in /res/values/colors.xml
I hope this can help!
Please compile, if possible, your embedded recovery kernels without the sensorhub defconfig options.
CONFIG_SENSORS_SSP=y
CONFIG_SENSORS_SYSFS=y
CONFIG_SENSORS_SSP_ACCELEROMETER_POSITION=7
CONFIG_SENSORS_SSP_GYROSCOPE_POSITION=7
CONFIG_SENSORS_SSP_MAGNETOMETER_POSITION=7
CONFIG_SENSORS_SSP_LSM330=y
CONFIG_SENSORS_SSP_CM36651=y
CONFIG_SENSORS_SSP_AK8963C=y
CONFIG_SENSORS_SSP_BMP182=y
CONFIG_SENSORS_SSP_AT32UC3L0128=y
CONFIG_SENSORS_SSP_SENSORHUB=y
The kernel flashes over the sensorhub firmware on every single entry of recovery, and rebooting into the normal kernel, if the embedded kernel firmware mismatches the live hardware firmware. I consider this dangerous because firstly I don't know what happens if a firmware flash fails on boot, and secondly, the whole procedure is done over the I2C bus and takes about 22 seconds, increasing the boot time (and recovery entry) dramatically. The firmware changes relatively often and we have like 4 different versions out there in the wild at this moment and they will surely increase.
Off-topic: The sensorhub is a new dedicated micro-controller chip found on the Note 2 which handles all device sensors, instead of them being handled by the main CPU itself. The point of the thing is to offload that work from the CPU to vastly improve battery life.
Thank you a lot for the feedback and input about this issue
When compiling recoveries, we get the binary (recovery file) and the kernel. Sorry if I seem noob here, but I do not compile kernels, I am only used to cwm source. And in the recovery binary sources, there is no sensors flashed, it is the kernel that is repacked with it.
Now, if I take a recovery.img as it is outputted when compiled from cm10 sources, that is packed with a cm10 kernel, the recovery will boot without a delay.
However, that will break exfat support since we cannot insmod the external modules
So, the only choice is to repack the recovery ramdisk with a stock Samsung kernel, and that's what I do in my recoveries. However, this seems to induce the boot delay for people using custom kernels built around some sources (redpill, Perseus)
These recoveries repacked with a Samsung kernel will run fine along stock kernels and Note2core custom kernel (also a 4.1.2 source).
One of the potential causes is this part of code I believe (have no Note 2 to debug it)
drivers/sensor/ak8963.c
Code:
if (retry_count < 5) {
retry_count++;
pr_warn("############################################");
pr_warn("%s, retry_count=%d\n", __func__, retry_count);
pr_warn("############################################");
goto retry;
} else {
There is a check routine repeated 5 times, and on each repeat count a goto loop. The retry loop restarts much above in the code
retry:
Code:
#ifdef FACTORY_TESTstatic int ak8963c_selftest(struct akm8963_data *ak_data, int *sf){
.
.
.
retry:
/* read device info */
i2c_smbus_read_i2c_block_data(ak_data->this_client,
AK8963_REG_WIA, 2, buf);
pr_info("%s: device id = 0x%x, info = 0x%x\n",
__func__, buf[0], buf[1]);
/* set ATSC self test bit to 1 */
i2c_smbus_write_byte_data(ak_data->this_client,
AK8963_REG_ASTC, 0x40);
/* start self test */
i2c_smbus_write_byte_data(ak_data->this_client,
AK8963_REG_CNTL1,
AK8963_CNTL1_SELF_TEST);
/* wait for data ready */
while (1) {
msleep(20);
if (i2c_smbus_read_byte_data(ak_data->this_client,
AK8963_REG_ST1) == 1) {
break;
}
}
i2c_smbus_read_i2c_block_data(ak_data->this_client,
AK8963_REG_HXL, sizeof(buf), buf);
/* set ATSC self test bit to 0 */
i2c_smbus_write_byte_data(ak_data->this_client,
AK8963_REG_ASTC, 0x00);
x = buf[0] | (buf[1] << 8);
y = buf[2] | (buf[3] << 8);
z = buf[4] | (buf[5] << 8);
/* Hadj = (H*(Asa+128))/256 */
x = (x*(ak_data->asa[0] + 128)) >> 8;
y = (y*(ak_data->asa[1] + 128)) >> 8;
z = (z*(ak_data->asa[2] + 128)) >> 8;
pr_info("%s: self test x = %d, y = %d, z = %d\n",
__func__, x, y, z);
if ((x >= -200) && (x <= 200))
pr_info("%s: x passed self test, expect -200<=x<=200\n",
__func__);
else
pr_info("%s: x failed self test, expect -200<=x<=200\n",
__func__);
if ((y >= -200) && (y <= 200))
pr_info("%s: y passed self test, expect -200<=y<=200\n",
__func__);
else
pr_info("%s: y failed self test, expect -200<=y<=200\n",
__func__);
if ((z >= -3200) && (z <= -800))
pr_info("%s: z passed self test, expect -3200<=z<=-800\n",
__func__);
else
pr_info("%s: z failed self test, expect -3200<=z<=-800\n",
__func__);
sf[0] = x;
sf[1] = y;
sf[2] = z;
if (((x >= -200) && (x <= 200)) &&
((y >= -200) && (y <= 200)) &&
((z >= -3200) && (z <= -800))) {
pr_info("%s, Selftest is successful.\n", __func__);
return 1;
} else {
if (retry_count < 5) {
retry_count++;
pr_warn("############################################");
pr_warn("%s, retry_count=%d\n", __func__, retry_count);
pr_warn("############################################");
goto retry;
}
These are many retries using a non efficient goto loop.
Basically, here's the current possibilities I see:
- if we repack the recovery with your kernel or redpill, people will get delay issues on stock ROMs/Kernels
- if we use cm10 kernel: no delays but we loose exfat support
- if we use note2core kernel we'll probably loose exfat support
- if I recompile kernel from samsung sources without the sensors, it seems it will also break exfat
So, at the end I do not see a good choice that will satisfy every one. Either I wait for Samsung to release their sources so that you fix the kernel or I repack with 2 kernels: Samsung stock and redpill, so people can chose
Hope I am not getting it all wrong, but that's how I understand it
All that code is totally irrelevant and has nothing to do with the issue. I also don't understand what you want to say about that loop? Goto is inefficient? Nonsense.
The firmware flash and logic happens in /drivers/sensorhub/ssp_firmware.c and its just a few lines of code. The whole flash process is logged in kmsg at boot so you can just retrieve that and see for yourself.
And you're missing the point, as long as you embed ANY kernel with the sensorhub drivers, they will flash it. There are stock kernels out there with versions 91100, 92600, 92800, 102600 (just from the top of my head, might differ). If you use any recovery kernel whose version mismatches the boot.img kernel firmware, you will get the issue.
And to be honest, I don't understand what the fuss is about fixing it, TWRP includes now a kernel with exFat and removed sensor drivers. You just have to do the same.
Phil3759 said:
Either I wait for Samsung to release their sources so that you fix the kernel
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is nothing to fix from the live kernel side, I hope you understand that...
AndreiLux said:
All that code is totally irrelevant and has nothing to do with the issue. I also don't understand what you want to say about that loop? Goto is inefficient? Nonsense.
The firmware flash and logic happens in /drivers/sensorhub/ssp_firmware.c and its just a few lines of code. The whole flash process is logged in kmsg at boot so you can just retrieve that and see for yourself.
And you're missing the point, as long as you embed ANY kernel with the sensorhub drivers, they will flash it. There are stock kernels out there with versions 91100, 92600, 92800, 102600 (just from the top of my head, might differ). If you use any recovery kernel whose version mismatches the boot.img kernel firmware, you will get the issue.
And to be honest, I don't understand what the fuss is about fixing it, TWRP includes now a kernel with exFat and removed sensor drivers. You just have to do the same.
There is nothing to fix from the live kernel side, I hope you understand that...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
AndreiLux said:
Sorry but you're a bit out of bound here with accusing kernel developers and doing such claims about the source of the issue while you seem pretty ignorant about the technical aspects of the problem.
As I said and explained in the thread you linked, the problem lies with the recovery and not the boot kernel. You're the one who will have to adapt your embedded kernel that you include here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You also seem a bit ignorant about recoveries
TWRP doesn't included any custom kernel with exfat support. It comes with cm9 kernel and maybe now cm10.1 since they moved sources to 4.2 recently. Their source is just the android/bootable/recovery part built around cyanogenmod source. CM kernel, as I said in my answer, doesn't flash the sensors that's why there is no delay. That's the only reason why twrp won't have the delay. I can also include cm10 kernel and no more delays, but say good bye to exfat.
TWRP includes native exfat support where as CM and AOKP choose to not include it in their source (thus cwm) because it is not legal (MS patent). Only thing cwm devs can do:
- import twrp source for exfat support and break the MS patent
- use Samsung genuine kernel to get exfat support
So, not an easy decision / move as you suggest
Phil3759 said:
TWRP doesn't included any custom kernel with exfat support. It comes with cm9 kernel and maybe now cm10.1 since they moved sources to 4.2 recently. Their source is just the android/bootable/recovery part built around cyanogenmod source. CM kernel, as I said in my answer, doesn't flash the sensors that's why there is no delay. That's the only reason why twrp won't have the delay. I can also include cm10 kernel and no more delays, but say good bye to exfat.
TWRP includes native exfat support where as CM and AOKP choose to not include it in their source (thus cwm) because it is not legal (MS patent). Only thing cwm devs can do:
- import twrp source for exfat support and break the MS patent
- use Samsung genuine kernel to get exfat support
So, not an easy decision / move as you suggest
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry but almost everything you said its wrong.
TWRP includes a modified CM kernel with added exFat and since I've made Bigbiff aware, also removes the sensorhub drivers.
CM kernel, as I said in my answer, doesn't flash the sensors that's why there is no delay.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The CM kernel is based on the Samsung sources and has the flash logic intact, because it's obviously needed in the OS to even have functioning sensors. It's not flashing in your case because you have matching firmwares, and that's all.
Sorry but I suggest you inform yourself here a bit more, I've explained it pretty clearly yet you seem to be ranting about things which are just not correct.
delete