Related
As we know, Android Lollipop is being released soon, and it requires a kernel that is 3.10.y, which is not available for our device. I'm not great with kernels and would in no way consider myself a kernel developer, but I have applied the neccessary patches to get the kernel version up to 3.10.0, which can be found here https://github.com/frap129/android_kernel_samsung_d2. Because I'm not a kernel developer, I am looking for some help in at least getting this kernel somewhat ready before the release of 5.0, so we can all get the latest update ASAP. Any and all help is apreciated!
Does your kernel compile and boot on cm11? If it does, there shouldn't be much problems in getting it working on L.
Any news? Does it compile?
frap129 said:
As we know, Android Lollipop is being released soon, and it requires a kernel that is 3.10.y, which is not available for our device. I'm not great with kernels and would in no way consider myself a kernel developer, but I have applied the neccessary patches to get the kernel version up to 3.10.0, which can be found here https://github.com/frap129/android_kernel_samsung_d2. Because I'm not a kernel developer, I am looking for some help in at least getting this kernel somewhat ready before the release of 5.0, so we can all get the latest update ASAP. Any and all help is apreciated!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
nope android 5.0 doesnt require new kernel, you could build it on 3.0.y like i am doing on my Note 2 oh and as far as i know new nexus devices are still on 3.4.y
Ivan_Meler said:
nope android 5.0 doesnt require new kernel, you could build it on 3.0.y like i am doing on my Note 2 oh and as far as i know new nexus devices are still on 3.4.y
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yes, but the new Samsung tablets (at least) are being shipped with the 3.10.x kernels.. 'course they're still running kitkat at the moment, but definitely cannot wait to see if/when they get kit kat.
I'll have to report back later after I take pictures of the 'about phone' page lol [if you want proof anyway]
frap129 said:
As we know, Android Lollipop is being released soon, and it requires a kernel that is 3.10.y, which is not available for our device. I'm not great with kernels and would in no way consider myself a kernel developer, but I have applied the neccessary patches to get the kernel version up to 3.10.0, which can be found here https://github.com/frap129/android_kernel_samsung_d2. Because I'm not a kernel developer, I am looking for some help in at least getting this kernel somewhat ready before the release of 5.0, so we can all get the latest update ASAP. Any and all help is apreciated!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ztotherad said:
yes, but the new Samsung tablets (at least) are being shipped with the 3.10.x kernels.. 'course they're still running kitkat at the moment, but definitely cannot wait to see if/when they get kit kat.
I'll have to report back later after I take pictures of the 'about phone' page lol [if you want proof anyway]
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know samsung does things like that (i have few other devices from them) but hey thats samsung and they are lazy so they dont want to update kernel version after device is relesed so they do this not to feel outdated on softwere side
Whoops! I read somewhere that the newly expanded SELinux permissions had some dependency on the 3.10.y kernel. Oh well, I guess Ill just test it anyways so I can brag that I have a newer kernel than anyone else if it works
frap129 said:
Whoops! I read somewhere that the newly expanded SELinux permissions had some dependency on the 3.10.y kernel. Oh well, I guess Ill just test it anyways so I can brag that I have a newer kernel than anyone else if it works
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That would definitely be awesome! Be sure to report back your results. I'm not an experienced ROM or kernel developer, but I'll be attempting on bringing a pure AOSP 5.0.0_r2 to my GS3. I'm not sure how successful I'll be, but my first step involved me planning on copying over our vendor repo from CM's M11 or M12 release (whenever that gets out) and trying to build Lollipop against it.
polarEskimo said:
That would definitely be awesome! Be sure to report back your results. I'm not an experienced ROM or kernel developer, but I'll be attempting on bringing a pure AOSP 5.0.0_r2 to my GS3. I'm not sure how successful I'll be, but my first step involved me planning on copying over our vendor repo from CM's M11 or M12 release (whenever that gets out) and trying to build Lollipop against it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was planning on working on that as well over the weekend.
polarEskimo said:
That would definitely be awesome! Be sure to report back your results. I'm not an experienced ROM or kernel developer, but I'll be attempting on bringing a pure AOSP 5.0.0_r2 to my GS3. I'm not sure how successful I'll be, but my first step involved me planning on copying over our vendor repo from CM's M11 or M12 release (whenever that gets out) and trying to build Lollipop against it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You will need to change many things in device tree to get it compile oh and dont forget to disable cm overlays
Ivan_Meler said:
You will need to change many things in device tree to get it compile oh and dont forget to disable cm overlays
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm very new to the AOSP build process and didn't have much luck last night getting the CM device sources to play nicely with AOSP. I'm finding it difficult to find any relevant guides on porting over the CM device trees to pure AOSP. If you or anyone else can help by explaining the process or pointing to a guide that I may have missed, I'd be grateful. Plus the more people we have collaborating on his, the better our chances of getting Lollipop on our devices.
I'm working on porting 5.0 to our phone, tweaked the device tree and got the build running but (as expected) i'm running into SEpolicy hell. The new selinux implementation in lollipop is proving to be trouble. I've just made a few more edits and the build is moving along, I'll post results shortly.
If anyone cares to help I'll walk you through what I've done so far. One thing to note is you need to adjust vendorsetup.sh to say full_d2lte-eng instead of cm_d2lte-eng and create AndroidProducts.mk that points at full_d2lte.mk (you can use the hammerhead device tree as a reference to do this)
That will get your device tree to regester properly. If you don't do the above you'll get a "no config makefile found" error when you try to select d2lte with lunch.
As far as the actual tree, you're gonna wanna grab device/samsung/d2lte, device/samsung/msm8960-common, vendor/samsung/d2lte, vendor/samsung/msm8960-common, vendor/cm, vendor/cyngn, and kernel/d2.
You'll also need a couple things from /hardware, namely hardware/samsung. There's a couple things you'll need to remove from msm8960-common in /device, I can't remember the specific file name but the error message will tell you.
Follow those instructions and you'll get where I'm at, with the build crapping out on SEpolicy
Restl3ss said:
I'm working on porting 5.0 to our phone, tweaked the device tree and got the build running but (as expected) i'm running into SEpolicy hell. The new selinux implementation in lollipop is proving to be trouble. I've just made a few more edits and the build is moving along, I'll post results shortly.
If anyone cares to help I'll walk you through what I've done so far. One thing to note is you need to adjust vendorsetup.sh to say full_d2lte-eng instead of cm_d2lte-eng and create AndroidProducts.mk that points at full_d2lte.mk (you can use the hammerhead device tree as a reference to do this)
That will get your device tree to regester properly. If you don't do the above you'll get a "no config makefile found" error when you try to select d2lte with lunch.
As far as the actual tree, you're gonna wanna grab device/samsung/d2lte, device/samsung/msm8960-common, vendor/samsung/d2lte, vendor/samsung/msm8960-common, vendor/cm, vendor/cyngn, and kernel/d2.
You'll also need a couple things from /hardware, namely hardware/samsung. There's a couple things you'll need to remove from msm8960-common in /device, I can't remember the specific file name but the error message will tell you.
Follow those instructions and you'll get where I'm at, with the build crapping out on SEpolicy
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow, this is awesome. It sounds like you've gotten the furthest than any of us. I appreciate the instructions, but is there any chance you could push your repos to GitHub? And do you think the SELinux stuff you're running into has anything to do with our device being on the 3.4 kernel instead of 3.10?
polarEskimo said:
Wow, this is awesome. It sounds like you've gotten the furthest than any of us. I appreciate the instructions, but is there any chance you could push your repos to GitHub? And do you think the SELinux stuff you're running into has anything to do with our device being on the 3.4 kernel instead of 3.10?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's not a kernel thing so much as a device tree thing. (Kitkat vs lollipop) the policy.conf (along with a few other things) in the device tree is designed for kitkat and isn't playing very nice with the 5.0 source. I'm trying to bang it out a bit by swapping a few C and header files in the build core.
As for my last build, my tweaks got me past where I was but now I'm hanging on a new set of SElinux errors.
I've been at this for less than 12 hours so given that timeframe this looks promising.
I'm trying to think of what the best way to go about this is. I could either try to adapt the tree for the new source or I could try to adapt the source for the old tree (use KitKat SElinux implementation on lollipop). The latter would have more success with root but the former is the correct way to do it (and would get us cyanogenmod 12 faster once they start nightlies, as I can push the changes to gerrit)
Restl3ss said:
It's not a kernel thing so much as a device tree thing. (Kitkat vs lollipop) the policy.conf (along with a few other things) in the device tree is designed for kitkat and isn't playing very nice with the 5.0 source. I'm trying to bang it out a bit by swapping a few C and header files in the build core.
As for my last build, my tweaks got me past where I was but now I'm hanging on a new set of SElinux errors.
I've been at this for less than 12 hours so given that timeframe this looks promising.
I'm trying to think of what the best way to go about this is. I could either try to adapt the tree for the new source or I could try to adapt the source for the old tree (use KitKat SElinux implementation on lollipop). The latter would have more success with root but the former is the correct way to do it (and would get us cyanogenmod 12 faster once they start nightlies, as I can push the changes to gerrit)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Again, any chance you can post your source? You don't have to try and work on it on your own. The more people that look at the progressions you made, the better our chances are at success.
polarEskimo said:
Again, any chance you can post your source? You don't have to try and work on it on your own. The more people that look at the progressions you made, the better our chances are at success.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'll push what I've got to github after this experiment
Cyanogen is updating sources to lolipop right now and omni has semi working source so it will be easier to port 5.0 since we wont need to edit device tree that much
Ivan_Meler said:
Cyanogen is updating sources to lolipop right now and omni has semi working source so it will be easier to port 5.0 since we wont need to edit device tree that much
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes but, they have a tentative deadline of dec. 1st to start pushing out the first nightlies. We likely won't be in the first wave either, since d2 is now 3 generations out of date.
I'd much rather just port aosp and have it in 2 weeks rather than wait 3 weeks to even begin work.
Side note. If/when I get this working I'm calling it PotatOS
Managed to work past my problem with SElinux for now, the build has now moved on to... another set of errors!
Build currently hangs at this:
Code:
host C++: libutils_32 <= system/core/libutils/StopWatch.cpp
host C++: libutils_32 <= system/core/libutils/String8.cpp
host C++: libutils_32 <= system/core/libutils/String16.cpp
host C++: libutils_32 <= system/core/libutils/SystemClock.cpp
host C++: libutils_32 <= system/core/libutils/Threads.cpp
host C++: libutils_32 <= system/core/libutils/Timers.cpp
system/core/libutils/Timers.cpp: In function 'nsecs_t systemTime(int)':
system/core/libutils/Timers.cpp:43:13: error: 'CLOCK_BOOTTIME' was not declared in this scope
build/core/binary.mk:618: recipe for target 'out/host/linux-x86/obj32/STATIC_LIBRARIES/libutils_intermediates/Timers.o' failed
make: *** [out/host/linux-x86/obj32/STATIC_LIBRARIES/libutils_intermediates/Timers.o] Error 1
#### make failed to build some targets (01:19 (mm:ss)) ####
Going to bed, will get back at it in the morning. Source should be up on github by tomorrow night
Restl3ss said:
Yes but, they have a tentative deadline of dec. 1st to start pushing out the first nightlies. We likely won't be in the first wave either, since d2 is now 3 generations out of date.
I'd much rather just port aosp and have it in 2 weeks rather than wait 3 weeks to even begin work.
Side note. If/when I get this working I'm calling it PotatOS
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm with you on that, I'd rather have pure AOSP than buggy CM nightlies. Also interesting choice of ROM name lol. Thanks for your hard work and I'm looking forward to pulling down your repos so I can take a stab at these compile-time issues.
Will Xiaomi release kernel sources fully for this smartphone & therefore able to have active rom development (including Android M 6.0 roms) in the near future ?
(Kernel sources for the Xiaomi Mi3 & Mi4 were released very late and not in full and are the reason I believe that many Lollipop roms for these devices are not stable).
I think it depends on whether the device goes international. They were quick to release the sources for the Mi4i, and that is the only phone they officially sell internationally. That said, at least it uses the most common SOC of 2015.
Does it help that it has the same soc as the nexus 5x?
ermacwins said:
Does it help that it has the same soc as the nexus 5x?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It helps a little bit maybe, but the problem is all the other stuff inside the phone is different. You still need proper sources from Xiaomi.
M.
Do Xiaomi devices have root "built-in" ?
I'm interested in ROM development, too, but for the first months having root would be enough.
Giocarro said:
Do Xiaomi devices have root "built-in" ?
I'm interested in ROM development, too, but for the first months having root would be enough.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have seen a guide on MIUI forum: "How to flash TWRP Recovery and Super Su(Root) on Xiaomi Mi4C"
Having access to kernel will also mean ir blaster will work on custom roms?
ermacwins said:
Having access to kernel will also mean ir blaster will work on custom roms?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Don't count on that. Many device that have kernel source and ir blasters still don't work on aosp based roms. Due to all the drivers for the hardware being closed sourced.
zelendel said:
Don't count on that. Many device that have kernel source and ir blasters still don't work on aosp based roms. Due to all the drivers for the hardware being closed sourced.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
When we say kernel source, is that pertaining to the soc?
ermacwins said:
When we say kernel source, is that pertaining to the soc?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The kernel covers all aspects of the device in one form or another.
zelendel said:
The kernel covers all aspects of the device in one form or another.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Let's say xiaomi is taking long to release their kernel source but the source for nexus 5x soc is out, would that be enough for aosp rom?
ermacwins said:
Let's say xiaomi is taking long to release their kernel source but the source for nexus 5x soc is out, would that be enough for aosp rom?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No it won't. You will also need the device tree for this device. It's not how long it takes for them to release it that I would be worried about. It's if the source is complete and not broken like they are known to release. They have a habit of release broken source to force users to use miui. If you look at other devices from this OEM it takes months some times a year before they release it and when they do it is broken and devs have to take weeks to get it even remotely working. Then there are still bugs that are never fixed.
zelendel said:
No it won't. You will also need the device tree for this device. It's not how long it takes for them to release it that I would be worried about. It's if the source is complete and not broken like they are known to release. They have a habit of release broken source to force users to use miui. If you look at other devices from this OEM it takes months some times a year before they release it and when they do it is broken and devs have to take weeks to get it even remotely working. Then there are still bugs that are never fixed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So having an aosp based rom as a daily driver is out of the question?
ermacwins said:
So having an aosp based rom as a daily driver is out of the question?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
isn't the Broken OS ROM by TS Team AOSP based ?
Of interest:
[News] Mi 3/4/Note Kernel Source Code Released! Next to Be, Mi Note PRO, Mi 4c/S:
http://en.miui.com/thread-235127-1-1.html
Don't sceptical, I reconstruct Redmi 2 kernel source without any help from Xiaomi. They released Redmi 2 kernel source for KitKat when my device already run "fully open source" and almost bug free Marshmallow :laugh:
Great news fron Weibo, thanks for Mokee's developer XiNGRZ's share.
New linux kernel 4.9 for Qualcomm Snapdragon 625 and kernel and HAL source code of Android 9
http://caf.mokeedev.com/?version=9
https://wx1.sinaimg.cn/large/4b263fe4gy1futf5hw8wmj21hs0a2gt0.jpg
https://m.weibo.cn/status/4279258651583321
I don't know how to upload the picture, so only can give you the website's hyperlink
Yes! Looking in the CAF sources page (https://wiki.codeaurora.org/xwiki/bin/QAEP/release) you can see that kernel 4.9 for msm8953 and msm8953pro exists since Oreo ( LA.UM.6.6.2.r1-04200-89xx.0 is yet based on kernel 4.9 and CAF released it in 19/07/2018) and it was based on Linux 4.9.82, now with Android 9 it's based on Linux 4.9.112.
So, long life to all these devices that has this SoC!
But, for Pie there are 2 tags and one is still based on kernel 3.18 (to be more precise, 3.18.115, LA.UM.7.6.r1-02000-89xx.0 ) and the other one is at kernel 4.9 (4.9.112, LA.UM.7.6.2.r1-03000-89xx.0 ). I think we can see some ROMs with kernel 4.9 in the next months, but for now we stay on 3.18 while waiting they make perfectly working 4.9.
matteo0026 said:
Yes! Looking in the CAF sources page (https://wiki.codeaurora.org/xwiki/bin/QAEP/release) you can see that kernel 4.9 for msm8953 and msm8953pro exists since Oreo ( LA.UM.6.6.2.r1-04200-89xx.0 is yet based on kernel 4.9 and CAF released it in 19/07/2018) and it was based on Linux 4.9.82, now with Android 9 it's based on Linux 4.9.112.
So, long life to all these devices that has this SoC!
But, for Pie there are 2 tags and one is still based on kernel 3.18 (to be more precise, 3.18.115, LA.UM.7.6.r1-02000-89xx.0 ) and the other one is at kernel 4.9 (4.9.112, LA.UM.7.6.2.r1-03000-89xx.0 ). I think we can see some ROMs with kernel 4.9 in the next months, but for now we stay on 3.18 while waiting they make perfectly working 4.9.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nice ! I love my sd625 device, good to know it's not left behind with an old Kernel.
Do you think this Kernel could improve performance and battery life ? Maybe make this chip even more efficient
Redmi4power said:
Nice ! I love my sd625 device, good to know it's not left behind with an old Kernel.
Do you think this Kernel could improve performance and battery life ? Maybe make this chip even more efficient
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, I think it just improves security. But it's yet a big step for sd625
matteo0026 said:
No, I think it just improves security. But it's yet a big step for sd625
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It does improve performance and battery life. Main thing, amongst other things like improved security and way newer drivers, is the EAS.
Our devs are already working on 4.9 kernel for Mi A1, already testing it and recently released experimental builds and even now it's no comparison to 3.18 in it's current state, it's not even fair to compare.
airidosas252 said:
It does improve performance and battery life. Main thing, amongst other things like improved security and way newer drivers, is the EAS.
Our devs are already working on 4.9 kernel for Mi A1, already testing it and recently released experimental builds and even now it's no comparison to 3.18 in it's current state, it's not even fair to compare.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I saw that thread on Mi A1, devs are doing a good work. And do you think that EAS could be usable on our SoC too? If yes, I know that improves much the battery life
matteo0026 said:
I saw that thread on Mi A1, devs are doing a good work. And do you think that EAS could be usable on our SoC too? If yes, I know that improves much the battery life
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Of course, EAS is impremented by Qcom itself on 4.9, so it is properly optimized and calibrated. Even now I don't need to adjust anything, just left it as it is.
What's more interesting is what OEM is going to do - be with 3.18 or move on to 4.9. Knowing Xiaomi, I'm guessing they'll stay on 3.18.
airidosas252 said:
Of course, EAS is impremented by Qcom itself on 4.9, so it is properly optimized and calibrated. Even now I don't need to adjust anything, just left it as it is.
What's more interesting is what OEM is going to do - be with 3.18 or move on to 4.9. Knowing Xiaomi, I'm guessing they'll stay on 3.18.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ehm, yes I they stay on 3.18 because there are 3.18 tags based on Pie for msm8953_64. I'm thinking to do 4.9 for p2, but... I don't know what I have to do... I haven't knowledges, but I want to give a try.
matteo0026 said:
Ehm, yes I they stay on 3.18 because there are 3.18 tags based on Pie for msm8953_64. I'm thinking to do 4.9 for p2, but... I don't know what I have to do... I haven't knowledges, but I want to give a try.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Some crucial stuff might need backporting for sure, you should ask around other people. They might help you out. I'm out of development game, too busy doing other things in my life, so can't comment on this much more.
matteo0026 said:
Ehm, yes I they stay on 3.18 because there are 3.18 tags based on Pie for msm8953_64. I'm thinking to do 4.9 for p2, but... I don't know what I have to do... I haven't knowledges, but I want to give a try.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
p2 community is with you. we can help you with testing. go ahead ???
Any update?
There will be advantage ?
Is it easy to port ?
Can not download source code for msm8953_64
Ask in tissot forum may be they'll know something
when its coming?
so excited:fingers-crossed:
ZJ_CN said:
Great news fron Weibo, thanks for Mokee's developer XiNGRZ's share.
New linux kernel 4.9 for Qualcomm Snapdragon 625 and kernel and HAL source code of Android 9
http://caf.mokeedev.com/?version=9
https://wx1.sinaimg.cn/large/4b263fe4gy1futf5hw8wmj21hs0a2gt0.jpg
https://m.weibo.cn/status/4279258651583321
I don't know how to upload the picture, so only can give you the website's hyperlink
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
any update ?
SD625 kernel 4.9
Hello, please help me find the kernel sources CAF for msm8953_64 3.18.71-74, thanks in advance
---------- Post added at 02:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:21 PM ----------
Hello, please help me find the kernel sources CAF for msm8953_64 3.18.71-74, i have compile kernel for device billion capture +, thanks in advance
Would like to breath new life into my Lenovo P2, but I guess 4.9 will remain a dream?
Introduction
A spinoff thread from the previously-supported-official thread by Atman.
This thread will contain my unofficial builds for violet. On the 16.0 version, the only real fix (so far...) have been the fingerprint scanner sepolicy denials. I aim to do monthly/bimonthly builds to keep up to date with security patches, as so far I haven't encountered any other issues (let me know).
On the 17.1 version, I have slowly figured out how to make it work, but it is highly experimental.
The 16.0 ROM is stable (I use it as my daily driver).
If you find any bugs, please do take screenshots, give a way for me to replicate it on my device, and send a logcat. If you're super smart, use a logcat and filter for the keyword so I don't have to do even more digging
Please don't tell me to use PE/Mokee commits.
Yet another update. I've got 17.1 builds working without having to resort to cheap tricks and commits (sort of).
Flash instructions
Same as usual:
Reboot to fastboot and flash recovery with fastboot (You have to use the TWRP linked below. Other versions likely won't boot.)
Reboot to recovery TWRP
Wipe to format data, wipe again to wipe system and cache (not necessary if you're updating, only if you're switching ROMs)
Flash firmware (ADB sideload) (this step is dated. The newer builds have a higher target firmware so you should try to flash without the firmware first, then flash the firmware if the ROM doesn't work.)
Flash the ROM (sideload)
Flash GApps, Magisk, etc. as necessary
Done
Downloads (16.0) (STABLE)
Firmware (Dated firwmare)
Recovery (TWRP)
11-Jun-2021 build (with 05-May-2021 security patch), and MD5 Digest
For previous builds see below
Downloads (17.1)
Here's the 17.1 ROM. Here's the md5 hash. It has the March security patch.
It currently does not boot. If you would like to try and help with development, flash the ROM, and then flash the Chinese Q firmware on top of it (this can be downloaded from xiaomifirmwareupdater). Be warned that there is a risk that the newest android keymaster may re-encrypt your device, which in the worst case may require you to format data and/or reflash recovery and/or flash a fastboot MIUI rom. So, it's a bit risky, but likely won't be an issue.
Credits, Sources, etc.
Too many to mention. Atman Shah for getting this device supported earlier last year. ThE_MarD (Marc Bougoin) for other help. Various other names I've seen - Bruno Martins, Weikai Kong, Wang Han... all of the Lineage dev team. I'm sure I'm missing many people who have been involved in the project. I am new, and very much a latecomer to all of this.
Device Tree: https://gitlab.com/mzha/android_device_xiaomi_violet
Kernel Tree: https://gitlab.com/mzha/android_kernel_xiaomi_violet
Other things see my gitlab: https://gitlab.com/mzha
A telegram group to discuss development for 16.0/17.1: t.me/lineageos_violet
Previous builds
07-Nov-2020 (incl. Oct-2020 security patch), with 07-Nov-2020 MD5 Hash
13-Jul-2020 (incl. Jul-2020 security patch), with 13-Jul-2020 MD5 Hash
11-May-2020 (incl. May-2020 security patch), with 11-May-2020 MD5 Hash
Good to see some devs showing interest on this os
will you be adding any customisation? or does it continue as pure lineage os?
e2vinay said:
Good to see some devs showing interest on this os
will you be adding any customisation? or does it continue as pure lineage os?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Pure LineageOS. There's more than enough customised ROMs for violet already in my opinion... and I also don't have that much time
hcnulma said:
Pure LineageOS. There's more than enough customised ROMs for violet already in my opinion... and I also don't have that much time
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's great
by any chance will you consider adding signature spoofing support? that would be really great. it would help many users go for microG instead of gapps
I completely understand you're starter.
great work. good luck.
Thank you
e2vinay said:
will you consider adding signature spoofing support?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, but there are a few alternatives:
Merge the changes from this RFC and build it
Download the spoofer from https://download.lineage.microg.org/violet/, or get the (ed)Xposed module, or other possibilities...
Will be official Lineage Os?
Can we expect los 17 soon?
himanshu fulmali said:
Can we expect los 17 soon?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As per OP: I'm waiting on both Android 10 firmware blobs + kernel to be released by Xiaomi... I'm not sure how the other ROM devs get around this, if it's easy to forward-port or not. But for now, only LOS 16.
Heyyo @hcnulma good to see you got your thread up and going!
As for 17.1? You can work with your current kernel and cherry-pick the fixes that other maintainers of violet are using and same for the device tree and vendor blobs.
As an example, LeEco msm8996 devives are using kernel source code from Marshmallow just rebased on a CAF Q Tag for our kernel since we never got anything newer...
Even once Xiaomi release their kernel source code for Android 10? It would probably take quite a bit of work to shave it down to what you specifically need and then importing it on top of a fresh CAF tag for the kernel or even more work to try and inplement it into uour current kernel.
To get official builds of LOS 16.0 going again for violet you would need to show that you are capable of fixing any major bugs that arise as well.
https://wiki.lineageos.org/submitting_device.html
anywho, hope this information helps bud!
hcnulma said:
As per OP: I'm waiting on both Android 10 firmware blobs + kernel to be released by Xiaomi... I'm not sure how the other ROM devs get around this, if it's easy to forward-port or not. But for now, only LOS 16.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am pretty sure you can use the pixel experience device tree and kernel to compile the ROM just like every other rom
Thank you. If he is stable enough I will use it to build RR PIE
Zjh0094 said:
Thank you. If he is stable enough I will use it to build RR PIE
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's definitely stable...
prajwal2001 said:
I am pretty sure you can use the pixel experience device tree and kernel to compile the ROM just like every other rom
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From what I understand, using their kernel tree will mean I'll have to change a lot of references in my own device tree, and using their device tree on top of that is essentially just building PE, not Lineage.
In any case, I did find the Snapdragon 675 (ie sm6150) kernel trees for Q in several places, https://github.com/sm6150-dev/android_kernel_xiaomi_sm6150 and https://github.com/PixelExperience-Devices/kernel_xiaomi_sm6150. I'll take a closer look into this...
I did find the most recent CAF kernel under sm6150 here, but there seems to be an issue of this not showing up in /quic/la... Something will be resolved. Hopefully.
Request to create group for discussion in Telegram
hcnulma said:
It's definitely stable...
From what I understand, using their kernel tree will mean I'll have to change a lot of references in my own device tree, and using their device tree on top of that is essentially just building PE, not Lineage.
In any case, I did find the Snapdragon 675 (ie sm6150) kernel trees for Q in several places, https://github.com/sm6150-dev/android_kernel_xiaomi_sm6150 and https://github.com/PixelExperience-Devices/kernel_xiaomi_sm6150. I'll take a closer look into this...
I did find the most recent CAF kernel under sm6150 here, but there seems to be an issue of this not showing up in /quic/la... Something will be resolved. Hopefully.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you won't have to make any changes in the kernel as far as I know and as for the device tree you just have to make some changes according to the ROM
as every ROM uses the same device tree
and you won't be making pe instead of lineage as the same device tree and kernel are used in every Q ROM except EvoX which uses crimson kernel
hcnulma said:
It's definitely stable...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks. I will use it as my benchmark to build RR pie.
---------- Post added 15th February 2020 at 12:03 AM ---------- Previous post was 14th February 2020 at 11:57 PM ----------
hcnulma said:
In any case, I did find the Snapdragon 675 (ie sm6150) kernel trees for Q in several places, https://github.com/sm6150-dev/android_kernel_xiaomi_sm6150 and https://github.com/PixelExperience-Devices/kernel_xiaomi_sm6150. I'll take a closer look into this...
I did find the most recent CAF kernel under sm6150 here, but there seems to be an issue of this not showing up in /quic/la... Something will be resolved. Hopefully.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
/quick/la/msm-4.14
prajwal2001 said:
you won't have to make any changes in the kernel as far as I know and as for the device tree you just have to make some changes according to the ROM
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is precisely the device tree that I'm worried about. From experience, PE has a lot of platform-specific stuff that Lineage doesn't (and the same the other way), and also from trying to figure out the fix to 16.0 I realised there's a lot of context/definition differences between the two device trees. I'd still give it a look, but I suspect it might be easier to just modify the current 16.0 device tree.
RupeshRN said:
Request to create group for discussion in Telegram
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
https://t.me/lineageos_violet.
Zjh0094 said:
/quick/la/msm-4.14
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah I already figured it was msm-4.14. Have already cloned it but am also considering cherrypicking changes that other devs have done to their kernel trees from 16.0 -> 17.1 as opposed to starting with the CAF kernel. A work in progress.
Sir I'm noob but mokee dev released android 10 and i think mokee and los are pretty same, will he not help you if you contact him?
An update on where I am:
I'm not sure whether to use the PE or Mokee vendor trees. Neither of them have much resemblance to 16.0 tree I have so cherry picking changes will be a nightmare.
The PE vendor tree has a lot of device-tree-specific commits, which will make it a headache to untangle later on. The Mokee vendor tree also has a lot of differing firmware files, though is a bit more similar to the LOS tree.
I'm doing a bit of experimentation to figure out which one will last better in the long run, since I can't seem to get my hands on any MIUI Android Q firmware blobs.
An update on where I am:
I'm not sure whether to use the PE or Mokee vendor trees. Neither of them have much resemblance to 16.0 tree I have so cherry picking changes will be a nightmare.
The PE vendor tree has a lot of device-tree-specific commits, which will make it a headache to untangle later on. The Mokee vendor tree also has a lot of differing firmware files, though is a bit more similar to the LOS tree.
I'm doing a bit of experimentation to figure out which one will last better in the long run, since I can't seem to get my hands on any MIUI Android Q firmware blobs.
Yet another update. I've got 17.1 builds working without having to resort to cheap tricks and commits (sort of).
Here's the 17.1 ROM. Here's the md5 hash. Needless to say, it's very experimental, not stable in the least (expect to get past boot maybe 70% of the time) - I'm getting very mixed results when experimenting myself. Nevertheless, try it out, see what you get. Install it the same way as usual. Keen to get as many eyes on this as possible
It's a mediatek processor and supports SPFlash byapss in case we screw up we can still recover...
Lenovo posted the 4.14 kernel, I tried building it and it seems to compile without any errors. Just need help getting the proprietary blobs and to build a device tree.
What's the model number of this?
I have a P11 TB-J606F
I am a developer, but I have no knowledge of how to extra the blobs ?
Can you post a link to the kernel sources ?
RogerClark said:
What's the model number of this?
I have a P11 TB-J606F
I am a developer, but I have no knowledge of how to extra the blobs ?
Can you post a link to the kernel sources ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is the snapdragon variant, likely much easier to develop a custom rom for...
I am talking about the mediatek one which is the cheaper model (although they call it "plus")
RogerClark said:
What's the model number of this?
I have a P11 TB-J606F
I am a developer, but I have no knowledge of how to extra the blobs ?
Can you post a link to the kernel sources ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You can get the source from lenevo's open source website and search for your model...
There are scripts floating around that can help you extract the blobs from your running device or a system image.
You'll have to make a device tree though
Ah. OK
I noticed something on github about Levono not releasing the latest kernel sources in a reasonable period of time.
Current kernel sources for Lenovo P11 (TB-J606F, TB-J606L) · Issue #1 · lenovo/gplcc
Hello, The kernel sources you (Lenovo) have posted in your support portal (https://support.lenovo.com/us/en/solutions/ht511330-lenovo-open-source-portal) for the P11 tablet are outdated (kernel ver...
github.com
And people just having kernel panic's after trying to use the old kernel, which appears to be over a year old
:-(
RogerClark said:
Ah. OK
I noticed something on github about Levono not releasing the latest kernel sources in a reasonable period of time.
Current kernel sources for Lenovo P11 (TB-J606F, TB-J606L) · Issue #1 · lenovo/gplcc
Hello, The kernel sources you (Lenovo) have posted in your support portal (https://support.lenovo.com/us/en/solutions/ht511330-lenovo-open-source-portal) for the P11 tablet are outdated (kernel ver...
github.com
And people just having kernel panic's after trying to use the old kernel, which appears to be over a year old
:-(
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You might have a lot of work to do then. You can compare with other tablets with the same SOC. Snapdragon is very common and they release their own source as well and can rebuild the kenrnel.
You can use that guys kernel and see what the panic is to figure out what he is missing. It's def possible!
nexuspb said:
You might have a lot of work to do then. You can compare with other tablets with the same SOC. Snapdragon is very common and they release their own source as well and can rebuild the kenrnel.
You can use that guys kernel and see what the panic is to figure out what he is missing. It's def possible!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yep. Probably a year old kernel should be fine, and the other guy's kernel probably has a miss configuration
anyone out there to test custom rom for P11 plus? I have compiled it but I haven't received the bootloader unlock email reply so cant test myself
Is LineageOS working on this tablet? I recently bought the tablet for my son (on a whim, without doing much research) obviously a fault on my part but i was hoping someone smarter than me got it working. I don't mean to come off rude demanding anything, just hoping someone has it working.
Can I use tb- j607 f android ROM on tb-j606f the only difference is the chipset ..snapdragon 775 and 662..the hardware the same ..please help
Cannot get android 13 for tb-606f please help