Related
X86 Atom Android tablet BLISS ROM. Kernel source & HALS, is tha enough to get going?
I have a TX201LA tablet runs Android 4.2. Its a dual device 2 systems in 1. The tablet half is what i am focusing on. NOT the dock as I have windows 10 running fine on that half. The tablet is nearly useless as it is on android 4.2. I've been exploring a few options for getting an android update. My tablet runs an atom x86 cpu with 2GB of ram and is quad core cloevertrail CPU x2560. Plenty of power to run a newer android or even chromeOS, cloudready, or remixOS. I've explored those options but Bliss is the most straight forward as there are already x86 builds of Bliss. I think support should be relatively easy to add for my device.
There are a few caveats however I know ways to overcome them if I can get a rom to load.
1. I dont have a unlocked bootloader but I maybe able to unlock using zenfone 5 unlock method. Still no custom rom has ever been made for my tablet, only for similar devices like zenfone 5, galaxy tab 3 10.1, & dell venue 7.
2. Once I get it unlocked, I can load CWM or use flashfire. My tablet boots with Droidboot, which I can replace with CWN via again a zenfone 5 exploit that I have confirmed works with my tablet.
3. Would bliss load things like my LCD driver, touch screen etc? That is possibly the biggest issue. I have the kernel code here, UPDATED: http://support.asus.com.cn/Download....1LAF&p=3&s=587 OR here original: http://support.asus.com.cn/Download....01LA&p=3&s=587
3A. If the kernel code has all the HALS isnt it possible to build a Bliss rom that would be loaded via CWM/Flashfire and then boot-able?
3B. Could the Bliss team build a rom with the kernel code listed above, that I could then test? Or would the bliss team need to the device (I would think not, i hope). If a rom could be created I would GLADLY donate to BLISS.
Love to find out if this is possible. THANKS
madhits45 said:
I have a TX201LA tablet runs Android 4.2. Its a dual device 2 systems in 1. The tablet half is what i am focusing on. NOT the dock as I have windows 10 running fine on that half. The tablet is nearly useless as it is on android 4.2. I've been exploring a few options for getting an android update. My tablet runs an atom x86 cpu with 2GB of ram and is quad core cloevertrail CPU x2560. Plenty of power to run a newer android or even chromeOS, cloudready, or remixOS. I've explored those options but Bliss is the most straight forward as there are already x86 builds of Bliss. I think support should be relatively easy to add for my device.
There are a few caveats however I know ways to overcome them if I can get a rom to load.
1. I dont have a unlocked bootloader but I maybe able to unlock using zenfone 5 unlock method. Still no custom rom has ever been made for my tablet, only for similar devices like zenfone 5, galaxy tab 3 10.1, & dell venue 7.
2. Once I get it unlocked, I can load CWM or use flashfire. My tablet boots with Droidboot, which I can replace with CWN via again a zenfone 5 exploit that I have confirmed works with my tablet.
3. Would bliss load things like my LCD driver, touch screen etc? That is possibly the biggest issue. I have the kernel code here, UPDATED: http://support.asus.com.cn/Download....1LAF&p=3&s=587 OR here original: http://support.asus.com.cn/Download....01LA&p=3&s=587
3A. If the kernel code has all the HALS isnt it possible to build a Bliss rom that would be loaded via CWM/Flashfire and then boot-able?
3B. Could the Bliss team build a rom with the kernel code listed above, that I could then test? Or would the bliss team need to the device (I would think not, i hope). If a rom could be created I would GLADLY donate to BLISS.
Love to find out if this is possible. THANKS
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For one, you should ask Bliss OS (x86) related questions in the Bliss OS thread: https://forum.xda-developers.com/bliss-roms/bliss-roms-development/x86-bliss-x86-pc-s-t3534657
Second, I tend to only use source dumps that maintain proper commit attribution. This is our way of giving credit where it is due (the original developers) Most of the source dumps I come across are a bunch of source code, with one commit at best titled, "initial commit" or "dump", and this to me says that there is something not trustworthy about it. I would like to see all the individual commits and changes made throughout the commit history, as this allows us to easily target changes that were made for that specific device.
If others want to go through the trouble of picking out those differences and creating a pull request with the proper attribution attached, we have no issues merging into our releases after testing.
electrikjesus said:
For one, you should ask Bliss OS (x86) related questions in the Bliss OS thread: https://forum.xda-developers.com/bliss-roms/bliss-roms-development/x86-bliss-x86-pc-s-t3534657
Second, I tend to only use source dumps that maintain proper commit attribution. This is our way of giving credit where it is due (the original developers) Most of the source dumps I come across are a bunch of source code, with one commit at best titled, "initial commit" or "dump", and this to me says that there is something not trustworthy about it. I would like to see all the individual commits and changes made throughout the commit history, as this allows us to easily target changes that were made for that specific device.
If others want to go through the trouble of picking out those differences and creating a pull request with the proper attribution attached, we have no issues merging into our releases after testing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Did you look at my source to see if this is a problem? I'm not exactly sure how it needs to look but is this something you have found to be the case with other asus sources in the past? I'd be surprised if it was. I'd love to get a bliss rom for my tablet but I figured this would not be so easy even with x86 support being its base.
madhits45 said:
Did you look at my source to see if this is a problem? I'm not exactly sure how it needs to look but is this something you have found to be the case with other asus sources in the past? I'd be surprised if it was. I'd love to get a bliss rom for my tablet but I figured this would not be so easy even with x86 support being its base.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
By the time I read your post, the links didn't work. And of the Asus source dumps I've seen in the past, they haven't included any git history
electrikjesus said:
By the time I read your post, the links didn't work. And of the Asus source dumps I've seen in the past, they haven't included any git history
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hey Electrik jesus, Here is the new link: https://www.asus.com/2-in-1-PCs/ASUS_Transformer_Book_Trio_TX201LA/HelpDesk_Download/
I'm from Michigan to.. So hopefully you can help another Michigander lol with a bliss build. Asus recently changed up there whole support site and the source code used to only be available on the international site now it seems its also on there US site. The Tx201LA was sold more overseas then in the US. It so similar to about 50 other devices (same Soc) asus made but mostly a lot of them are phones.
madhits45 said:
Hey Electrik jesus, Here is the new link: https://www.asus.com/2-in-1-PCs/ASUS_Transformer_Book_Trio_TX201LA/HelpDesk_Download/
I'm from Michigan to.. So hopefully you can help another Michigander lol with a bliss build. Asus recently changed up there whole support site and the source code used to only be available on the international site now it seems its also on there US site. The Tx201LA was sold more overseas then in the US. It so similar to about 50 other devices (same Soc) asus made but mostly a lot of them are phones.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I checked it out, and it is just as I was expecting. no .git folder or anything to show what commits were made on top of the standard kernel source. I guess the only thing we can do about it though is set an example of how to do it...
Example of how a kernel commit history could look: https://github.com/BlissRoms-x86/platform_kernel_common/commits/k4.15.10-ipts
electrikjesus said:
I checked it out, and it is just as I was expecting. no .git folder or anything to show what commits were made on top of the standard kernel source. I guess the only thing we can do about it though is set an example of how to do it...
Example of how a kernel commit history could look: https://github.com/BlissRoms-x86/platform_kernel_common/commits/k4.15.10-ipts
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So if I understand you correctly the source code needs to be gone through to be pick out the comments etc and then it can be pulled into the bliss x86 source for merging? I think this is above my skill set, what can I do if I dont have the skills to do this?
madhits45 said:
So if I understand you correctly the source code needs to be gone through to be pick out the comments etc and then it can be pulled into the bliss x86 source for merging? I think this is above my skill set, what can I do if I dont have the skills to do this?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's more of a prevention on our end from not giving attribution to the original author. Let's say that someone who worked on a linux project, got the GPU to finally work right with the chipsets in your ASUS. I would like to see that one guy's additions, but even moreso, I would like to see ASUS show that they used his work. Because for all we know, there are hundreds of commits in there that were added, and some of that could be work that someone else deserves to be reimbursed for. The fact that they removed the .git folder shows that they have something to hide. Calling it "trade secrets" shouldn't be allowed when it comes to kernel code.
electrikjesus said:
It's more of a prevention on our end from not giving attribution to the original author. Let's say that someone who worked on a linux project, got the GPU to finally work right with the chipsets in your ASUS. I would like to see that one guy's additions, but even moreso, I would like to see ASUS show that they used his work. Because for all we know, there are hundreds of commits in there that were added, and some of that could be work that someone else deserves to be reimbursed for. The fact that they removed the .git folder shows that they have something to hide. Calling it "trade secrets" shouldn't be allowed when it comes to kernel code.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So its about credit and royalties? I understand being upset at asus because they did not or have not credited someone but what can i do about that? Am I stuck at not being able to have my device supported because asus is a bad actor? Is there any way I can get support?
madhits45 said:
So its about credit and royalties? I understand being upset at asus because they did not or have not credited someone but what can i do about that? Am I stuck at not being able to have my device supported because asus is a bad actor? Is there any way I can get support?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is, you could take the route Jakeday has for the Surface line. Since we don't know the author, he created patches to add the support needed to the kernel. It's far from the easy road, but this is what helps developers far more than any source dump
https://github.com/jakeday/linux-surface
electrikjesus said:
There is, you could take the route Jakeday has for the Surface line. Since we don't know the author, he created patches to add the support needed to the kernel. It's far from the easy road, but this is what helps developers far more than any source dump
https://github.com/jakeday/linux-surface
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What I am confused about is this.
1. Is it a protocol thing? IE asus did not give credit and thus bliss refuses to add support unless they do.
OR
2. Is it an actual road block? IE we cant use the source code as is because it needs more information or reformatting?
Or is it both with more weight on #2?
If its #1 then can we make an exception? and if it is #2 why isnt there some sort of code AI that can redo the code to make it conform to the needed edits, seems like that should be possible. I would hope that if it is #1 only that you would admit that is all it is and help more people instead of forcing people to work around the bureaucracy brought onto them by bad actors like asus.
madhits45 said:
What I am confused about is this.
1. Is it a protocol thing? IE asus did not give credit and thus bliss refuses to add support unless they do.
OR
2. Is it an actual road block? IE we cant use the source code as is because it needs more information or reformatting?
Or is it both with more weight on #2?
If its #1 then can we make an exception? and if it is #2 why isnt there some sort of code AI that can redo the code to make it conform to the needed edits, seems like that should be possible. I would hope that if it is #1 only that you would admit that is all it is and help more people instead of forcing people to work around the bureaucracy brought onto them by bad actors like asus.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's the third option, I'm too busy to do the work for something that is more important to you than it is to me.
electrikjesus said:
It's the third option, I'm too busy to do the work for something that is more important to you than it is to me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LOL.. Pretty PLEASE, with big traverse city cherrys on top.
I have also emailed asus to see if they will look at the source code again to properly format it, not likely but worth a shot.
Does this help: https://proandroiddev.com/ooga-chaka-git-hooks-to-enforce-code-quality-11ce8d0d23cb
Is the process of going through the code very time consuming? So even if using git hooks it will take time? Im still trying to understand why there is no AI that can go through it.
electrikjesus said:
It's the third option, I'm too busy to do the work for something that is more important to you than it is to me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is important for several people. I hope at some point you have enough time to be able to help us. please help.
I am revisiting this conversation after a few months, and for starters, I would like to say I'm sorry for being rude. Secondly, I would like to use this conversation to start change where we need it. Innovation is the key point here. and if any of us are to build off of one another, we must work together to make it all possible. The lack of commit attribution by OEMs is a blatant disregard for GPL and Open Source licensing. As a ROM team, I would love to work with any OEM to help them through the process of adding a proper commit history. As Bliss, we are open to taking on any new device work, and we have in the past with Udoo-x86 & PINE64, but one of our requirements is that we can release full source, commit history, etc. Everything anyone could need to build off our work.
Too many OEM's are using patents as a way to stab eachother in the back, or use it as a "competitive" road block to stop the sale other devices that may have a similar method or feature. We don't agree with this practice and believe it is driven by greed and the wants of a few, not the needs of the majority. We as Bliss will continue to do what we can to act as an example of what should be done to best facilitate the rapid development of mobile technology and software for all parties involved.
Hoping this is the right section since its not device specific.
Experienced or not, it doesn't matter. I've been on XDA for a number of years. And am noticing things from my own experience and talking to others. Its hard to get help sometimes. Not all devs want to talk. Teach. Or help people all the time. Devices are being dropped from support. Maintainers are leaving the scene. Currently I have an Oreo and pie ROM for s6e+ and note 5. With the list of devices being dropped, and surprising amount of people reaching out to me for support, I decided it may be beneficial to recruit a few people who want to develop ROMs. This is a great chance to learn. I would like to pick up at least partial support for several more devices, and need some help to do it. My goal in this endeavor is to continue to provide ROMs to people who need them, while teaching other users to develop. This will help to bring fresh life to the scene, and allow support for more devices to be added. If you are interested reply below or inbox me. There is a google hangouts set up, and other methods of team communication will follow. I also have a home server with a 24/7 connection and no data limits on my internet, and an ftp set up to host files directly and not need third party sites.
so basically you have good intentions, no plan and a home server )
what we really need is a unification of all the different but not really different roms and their devs,
then its possible to see a future for long term support for all devices, or at least many.
anyhting else is jsut another project that will or will not die, based on good will and free time of the maintainer, mostly not even reckognized
due to the chaos of fragmented android and even more fragmented custom rom scene.
godkingofcanada said:
Hoping this is the right section since its not device specific.
Experienced or not, it doesn't matter. I've been on XDA for a number of years. And am noticing things from my own experience and talking to others. Its hard to get help sometimes. Not all devs want to talk. Teach. Or help people all the time. Devices are being dropped from support. Maintainers are leaving the scene. Currently I have an Oreo and pie ROM for s6e+ and note 5. With the list of devices being dropped, and surprising amount of people reaching out to me for support, I decided it may be beneficial to recruit a few people who want to develop ROMs. This is a great chance to learn. I would like to pick up at least partial support for several more devices, and need some help to do it. My goal in this endeavor is to continue to provide ROMs to people who need them, while teaching other users to develop. This will help to bring fresh life to the scene, and allow support for more devices to be added. If you are interested reply below or inbox me. There is a google hangouts set up, and other methods of team communication will follow. I also have a home server with a 24/7 connection and no data limits on my internet, and an ftp set up to host files directly and not need third party sites.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I respect your Idea but I don't think something like this is required.You see I had been using linux for 4+ years and was pretty adapted to it when I switched to a Note 3.Recently I discovered the Modding part of it and the huge development of custom roms and kernels.and despite having no clue what I was doing I could easily develop a Kernel without a hassle.I went even one step further and made a halium port for it.Sure it didn't boot the first time but by using methods on xda already discussed in detail I was able to make it work.So,the main thing is that someone like me who has no experience could make a ROM in 3 hours without any complications(Except those who could be solved by googling).Then anybody could do it.Currently there isn't a ROM bug or a issue that hasn't been discussed on either xda or other android development sites.But that doesn't mean we shouldn't help newcomers.But it is rare for someone to look on the other side of development and there is enough documentations for him to do it.Maybe too much.qq
Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
Atifbaig786 said:
I respect your Idea but I don't think something like this is required.You see I had been using linux for 4+ years and was pretty adapted to it when I switched to a Note 3.Recently I discovered the Modding part of it and the huge development of custom roms and kernels.and despite having no clue what I was doing I could easily develop a Kernel without a hassle.I went even one step further and made a halium port for it.Sure it didn't boot the first time but by using methods on xda already discussed in detail I was able to make it work.So,the main thing is that someone like me who has no experience could make a ROM in 3 hours without any complications(Except those who could be solved by googling).Then anybody could do it.Currently there isn't a ROM bug or a issue that hasn't been discussed on either xda or other android development sites.But that doesn't mean we shouldn't help newcomers.But it is rare for someone to look on the other side of development and there is enough documentations for him to do it.Maybe too much.qq
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You can't just make a ROM for any device is 3 hours. It doesn't always work that way. Especially not if building from source
godkingofcanada said:
You can't just make a ROM for any device is 3 hours. It doesn't always work that way. Especially not if building from source
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I just followed a guide.On an XL VPS. With maybe 22GB ram and 16 xeon cores
Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
Atifbaig786 said:
I just followed a guide.On an XL VPS. With maybe 22GB ram and 16 xeon cores
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't disagree sometimes it is easy. But what if lineage or GitHub don't have all necessary files for the build? And then you need to extract them from your phone manually, or if build won't boot up and needs modifications to the kernel.. fixing drivers that do not work. It's not always so simple as build, flash and finish.
godkingofcanada said:
I don't disagree sometimes it is easy. But what if lineage or GitHub don't have all necessary files for the build? And then you need to extract them from your phone manually, or if build won't boot up and needs modifications to the kernel.. fixing drivers that do not work. It's not always so simple as build, flash and finish.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I did face issues.The End of the guide covered the basics of logging stuff and finding things.They were just as same as debugging a linux OS but yeah you're right as I did face the extracting files(dunno what was supposed to do).So I wrote "extract proprietary vendor code from ROM" and boom lineage gave it to me.Also the guide was only for devices that exist on lineage and sometimes we need to start from scratch.And maybe We both are,Who knows what the future might bring,BTW have you heard about Google's new Boy Fuchisa or something like that.I wanted to talk someone in the field of development about this but nobody was bringing up the non-linux version of Google's OS for smartphones.
Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
Atifbaig786 said:
I did face issues.The End of the guide covered the basics of logging stuff and finding things.They were just as same as debugging a linux OS but yeah you're right as I did face the extracting files(dunno what was supposed to do).So I wrote "extract proprietary vendor code from ROM" and boom lineage gave it to me.Also the guide was only for devices that exist on lineage and sometimes we need to start from scratch.And maybe We both are,Who knows what the future might bring,BTW have you heard about Google's new Boy Fuchisa or something like that.I wanted to talk someone in the field of development about this but nobody was bringing up the non-linux version of Google's OS for smartphones.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes I heard about it. I stumbled across it by accident looking for a way to shim the s6 edge plus cam on my pie rom. It lead me to reading about vulkan, which showed me a new Google os. It looks nice
godkingofcanada said:
Yes I heard about it. I stumbled across it by accident looking for a way to shim the s6 edge plus cam on my pie rom. It lead me to reading about vulkan, which showed me a new Google os. It looks nice
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well It seems that it uses a Different type of kernel "microkernel".For someone as stupid as me I don't get it what was the difference between a microkernel and monolithic one on an android device(or a low powered arm processor based board that has a screen attached to it)Will it be performance,Faster loading,Efficiency.I can find a million articles on microkernel vs monolithic but they are in latin for me.But you can just give me the crash course in maybe 3-4 lines.
Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
Atifbaig786 said:
Well It seems that it uses a Different type of kernel "microkernel".For someone as stupid as me I don't get it what was the difference between a microkernel and monolithic one on an android device(or a low powered arm processor based board that has a screen attached to it)Will it be performance,Faster loading,Efficiency.I can find a million articles on microkernel vs monolithic but they are in latin for me.But you can just give me the crash course in maybe 3-4 lines.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Device drivers, protocol, file systems moved from kernel to user. It's got less code, more lightweight. And it was created with embedded systems in mind. In theory it should be faster, and more suited to small devices like phones with embedded systems. Giving devices their own dedicated kernel finally instead of butchering a Linux kernel to suit their device needs. It's also universal in terms of cross platform
godkingofcanada said:
Device drivers, protocol, file systems moved from kernel to user. It's got less code, more lightweight. And it was created with embedded systems in mind. In theory it should be faster, and more suited to small devices like phones with embedded systems. Giving devices their own dedicated kernel finally instead of butchering a Linux kernel to suit their device needs. It's also universal in terms of cross platform
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Now that's more like it.I was afraid that android was finally going to commit close source(or suicicde).But since it's open source and I hear good things from you and 4 other guys who have experience in doing stuff I think,Hope and Pray that it might be a good change.Also thanks for using plain English and being a Open guy.Currently I am thinking that 5 years from now someone gonna run into this post and have a little smirk on his face for you who is reading this,Quote and tell me was it good?Was we good?
Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
Atifbaig786 said:
Now that's more like it.I was afraid that android was finally going to commit close source(or suicicde).But since it's open source and I hear good things from you and 4 other guys who have experience in doing stuff I think,Hope and Pray that it might be a good change.Also thanks for using plain English and being a Open guy.Currently I am thinking that 5 years from now someone gonna run into this post and have a little smirk on his face for you who is reading this,Quote and tell me was it good?Was we good?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think the changes appear good. Less stuff locked away in private, more easily accessible to all. Treble has the vendor stuff available to roms that aren't stock, this will make the kernel tiny and easy to build. One by one the barriers people have to overcome to build their own roms are being taken away.
I wonder why after roughly 3 years Still no one showing interest in developing a custom rom for our first grade phone? Before they claimed that it is on pause because no has the kernel source code, but now we have access to the official source code and yet no one developed a brand new custom rom for Nokia phone.
Please if anyone could help write a comment below.
to be honest, at this point i simply dont care whatever is happening in this community. If you have knowledge of building a custom rom then why not giving it a go?
i simply dont possess the knowledge at the same time i am also not complaining.
Ok, so first: Nokia 8 launched in September 2017. According to my calculator, thats roughly one and a half year since it came out. Not three.
Then, regarding kernel sources: The official kernel sources for our phone are from the Oreo 8.0 release. It's possible to use older kernels for newer ROMs, but it is really not recommended. And I am not even speaking of the fact that those official kernel sources still require edits to even work. There is no support from Nokia / HMD for development on this phone. Even their unlocker app doesn't work on the majority of versions and completely broke after 2 security patches.
I would be suprised if you can find any developer who is willing to spend their time fighting the stuff that gets thrown between our feet. (broken kernel source, not being able to temporary boot images and having to flash them instead, no working kernel sources from hmd, no reliable bootloader unlock, no official rescue tool etc. etc.) And usually, developers make things because their either need them themselves, or for the joy of creating something and sharing it with people who appreciate it. And when you can port a ROM, you can make the edits you want for yourself with Magisk, so reason 1 is already not applicable.
And as hard as it might sound, this community is by no means large enough to justify porting a ROM you dont need and risking your device stability / userdata in the process.
So the TL;DR; is probably: Either do it yourself, or expect it to never actually happen, as harsh as it sounds, sadly.
THMSP said:
Ok, so first: Nokia 8 launched in September 2017. According to my calculator, thats roughly one and a half year since it came out. Not three.
Then, regarding kernel sources: The official kernel sources for our phone are from the Oreo 8.0 release. It's possible to use older kernels for newer ROMs, but it is really not recommended. And I am not even speaking of the fact that those official kernel sources still require edits to even work. There is no support from Nokia / HMD for development on this phone. Even their unlocker app doesn't work on the majority of versions and completely broke after 2 security patches.
I would be suprised if you can find any developer who is willing to spend their time fighting the stuff that gets thrown between our feet. (broken kernel source, not being able to temporary boot images and having to flash them instead, no working kernel sources from hmd, no reliable bootloader unlock, no official rescue tool etc. etc.) And usually, developers make things because their either need them themselves, or for the joy of creating something and sharing it with people who appreciate it. And when you can port a ROM, you can make the edits you want for yourself with Magisk, so reason 1 is already not applicable.
And as hard as it might sound, this community is by no means large enough to justify porting a ROM you dont need and risking your device stability / userdata in the process.
So the TL;DR; is probably: Either do it yourself, or expect it to never actually happen, as harsh as it sounds, sadly.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can't agree with you more, I was just wondered how this newly released phone still has no custom rom while my LG G3 still after those years received many from lots of developers.
So sad to see our beloved NOKIA has no juice to compete in this race.
error748 said:
I can't agree with you more, I was just wondered how this newly released phone still has no custom rom while my LG G3 still after those years received many from lots of developers.
So sad to see our beloved NOKIA has no juice to compete in this race.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We all found out the hard way what Nokia was about by being early adopters. To me they are only interested in pushing their next device and Android One is making that easier for them. So much so the 8 is long since off their radar. It was an 'OK' phone for the money, but there's better now and it's them I'll be looking to this year.
At this point its best to just modify the current stock rom yourself by debloating it, installing kernel tweking modules via magisk, installing themes via substratum and customizing the interface using GravityBox and Xposed Edge. Thats the closest we will come to having a custom rom experience. Ive accepted that no developer will bother with this phone given all the devices that have come out since its release.
Its a lesson learnt. I love this phone but I will never buy another Nokia phone ever again. Im currently saving up for a Xiaomi phone and will use this Nokia 8 as a secondary phone in due time.
MDV106 said:
At this point its best to just modify the current stock rom yourself by debloating it, installing kernel tweking modules via magisk, installing themes via substratum and customizing the interface using GravityBox and Xposed Edge. Thats the closest we will come to having a custom rom experience. Ive accepted that no developer will bother with this phone given all the devices that have come out since its release.
Its a lesson learnt. I love this phone but I will never buy another Nokia phone ever again. Im currently saving up for a Xiaomi phone and will use this Nokia 8 as a secondary phone in due time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Poco or 1+ here
MDV106 said:
At this point its best to just modify the current stock rom yourself by debloating it, installing kernel tweking modules via magisk, installing themes via substratum and customizing the interface using GravityBox and Xposed Edge. Thats the closest we will come to having a custom rom experience. Ive accepted that no developer will bother with this phone given all the devices that have come out since its release.
Its a lesson learnt. I love this phone but I will never buy another Nokia phone ever again. Im currently saving up for a Xiaomi phone and will use this Nokia 8 as a secondary phone in due time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Me too, my next phone would be OnePlus 6T or Oppo.
Never ever ever go around nokia phones again
Hi everyone,
I bugged HMD about not releasing more recent source code for the Nokia 8 and a few days ago they updated their site with links to code for the Android 9 builds. Note they still haven't published the latest build (5.150) nor and 4.88 builds nor any Android 7.1x builds.
I checked the archives and they are different from the previous 4.84 release, but I've no idea if they are buildable. They still look like they might be missing some useful bits, from my limited knowledge. Those of you who know what to do with this can test it and see if it's useful to you.
Let me know if you would like me to keep bugging them about the 4.88 build's code, or even any earlier 3.x builds.
Have fun!
Cheers
Thanks for bugging them!
Sadly it still contains the same device tree typos that the previous NB1 and even A1N sources contained, so without fixing them those trees do build but won't work correctly as the display won't be accessed correctly (half the screen will be white IIRC).
To be clear, this is what I mean: https://github.com/resident-nokia/u...f68ad2f#diff-6ea71fa79b281dd80cbab0bea96d9472
Also, as a funfact: A quick diff I did showed that the 5140 source is identical to the 4120 kernel source from Nokia 8 Sirocco that was released around December if I am not mistaken (minus the device tree files and some places where device names were hardcoded). That would mean that our kernel hasn't seen an update since December (actually even September, since thats the first CAF tag (Qualcomm upstream) that has changes you can find in those sources). Customer service I guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Hi @THMSP!
Thanks for checking it out, shame it's still got errors in it. That's very interesting about the comparison with the Sirocco and the last change being in September. I suppose a new build doesn't automatically mean a new kernel though.
Since both the Android 8 and 9 source contain errors my only wonder is if the Android 7 source would also have errors, or if it might actually work?! I will ask them for it.
Cheers
EDIT: So the device tree is there after all? I had obviously misunderstood some of the other conversations I'd read, I had always thought it was missing. So it seems the device tree is there, but broken? Or only partially there, and what is there is broken?
The device tree files are all there, but they contain four serious typos that cause them to not actually work when you boot your compiled kernel. The rest of the source code does work. Correcting those typos is not much of a deal, but it is annoying (and personally I wonder how on earth they even maintain these sources).
The other annyoing issue is that for any custom or mismatching kernel the wifi driver won't load (because of signature enforcement for kernel modules), so if you want to make a kernel that doesn't break wifi, you need to add the Qualcomm wifi driver yourself (which then requires additional patches to actually work as well).
When you do those two things, the kernel will work just like the one that Nokia is shipping. For example, my TWRP builds for NB1 actually use the kernel source code for Sirocco, but with the (corrected) device tree files from NB1, and a patched version of the qualcomm wifi driver compiled into the kernel directly.
I am not sure if the nougat sources would help that much to be honest. It's not like those sources are broken because HMD / FIH don't know how to fix them, I bet they break them on purpose (or they get broken by the tool they use to package them). So any further release by them will probably contain the same stupid errors.
Wow! That's a lot to do to make them usable. I agree that I have many questions about QC and QA in the software for these phones, not only because of the source code releases.
You did very well making the device tree for the NB1 then and getting TWRP running, well done! And thanks
Like many I'm interested in the possibility of running other OSes on the NB1, particularly /e/ and any that run on Halium. I presume it will still take a lot of work to get another OS running on the NB1, but is it doable? I think in all cases these projects start from a LOS base.
Cheers
madb1lly said:
Wow! That's a lot to do to make them usable. I agree that I have many questions about QC and QA in the software for these phones, not only because of the source code releases.
You did very well making the device tree for the NB1 then and getting TWRP running, well done! And thanks
Like many I'm interested in the possibility of running other OSes on the NB1, particularly /e/ and any that run on Halium. I presume it will still take a lot of work to get another OS running on the NB1, but is it doable? I think in all cases these projects start from a LOS base.
Cheers
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Most of the work regarding TWRP and the kernel was actually done by @dg28gadhavi - I just tried to update everything a bit and adapt it to all the new bootloader bugs features that were introduced over time. He deserves all the credit, otherwise I would've had nothing to learn all this stuff from.
Regarding custom ROMs: Sure it is possible. But it is a huge amount of work, that requires you to risk your device (Snapdragon chips are unbrickable, but you couldn't use it as a daily driver), with potentially very few people actually caring (or even donating etc.). When you reached the point where you are able to port a ROM, you have the knowledge to make the changes that you need yourself with Magisk as well. So the only real reason to port a ROM is to give something to the community. And the Nokia 8 community simply isn't big enough that anyone would do that, imo.
Well thanks for @dg28gadhavi as well then!
Yes, I have read that Magisk can do most of what a custom Android ROM might have done. I have some reservations about Magisk, since it's not open source I don't know if I fully trust it, but that could also be the case for most of the software I use! Personally I'm interested most in /e/, which is currently built of a LOS base, but I don't know if all the customisations they've done (mainly to remove any communication with Google services) can be done with Magisk.
As for Halium-relate OSes (Ubuntu Touch, Plasma Mobile, Sailfish OS, LuneOS... some others too), Magisk can't recreate those as they're basically completely different from Android, they just run off the Android kernel and use libhybris to interface with the Bionic library drivers; the rest of Android is not used.
Anyway, this is all beyond my available time at present, so I will just have to carry on with stock Android maybe with some Magisk customisations until my phone breaks!
Cheers
madb1lly said:
I have some reservations about Magisk, since it's not open source I don't know if I fully trust it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Magisk is completely opensource, it has always been: https://github.com/topjohnwu/Magisk
You might be thinking about SuperSU which was / is indeed closed source
Hi,
So what are the reasons for the lack of custom ROMs for our device and what can we do about it?
1. Device is new? So is the OP 8 and it already has development going on full speed.
2. It's not that popular, devs don't have it? Could we chip in a few bucks and get a device for one of the recognized developers?
3. Issues with kernel source and device tree from Xiaomi? Is there anything we can do about it?
4. Lack of proper TWRP? Btw. The Chinese TWRP is 130MB+ in size, whereas the proper one is usually 30MB+, I don't trust it at all. I think @mauronofrio is already working his magic and we will have a fully working TWRP soon.
Did I miss something? It's a great phone hardware wise, but the lack of custom ROMs is making it useless for people like us. I'm actually learning how to build custom ROMs because of that, so maybe I could create something, but it's not a trivial task, especially for an old-ish dude with not a lot of time on hand and who's just getting started.
grt67DFqyu said:
Hi,
So what are the reasons for the lack of custom ROMs for our device and what can we do about it?
1. Device is new? So is the OP 8 and it already has development going on full speed.
2. It's not that popular, devs don't have it? Could we chip in a few bucks and get a device for one of the recognized developers?
3. Issues with kernel source and device tree from Xiaomi? Is there anything we can do about it?
4. Lack of proper TWRP? Btw. The Chinese TWRP is 130MB+ in size, whereas the proper one is usually 30MB+, I don't trust it at all. I think @mauronofrio is already working his magic and we will have a fully working TWRP soon.
Did I miss something? It's a great phone hardware wise, but the lack of custom ROMs is making it useless for people like us. I'm actually learning how to build custom ROMs because of that, so maybe I could create something, but it's not a trivial task, especially for an old-ish dude with not a lot of time on hand and who's just getting started.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i think you have checks all spots with this thread. Maybe points 2 and 3 has major weight on this situation. We need to flodding poco on social networks to make more aware about this lack of development cause one of poco selling points was devices dev friendly and without proper kernel sources or devices tree, we will be in an dead end very soon. f1 has a lot of active development even 2 years later! i can't believe f2 will be a flawn on dev department...
I think it's Corona stuff, lots of device releases not much man power, why bother fixing source code that will be irrelevant in 3-4 months when android 11 comes out.
I think we have to just wait.
grt67DFqyu said:
Hi,
So what are the reasons for the lack of custom ROMs for our device and what can we do about it?
1. Device is new? So is the OP 8 and it already has development going on full speed.
2. It's not that popular, devs don't have it? Could we chip in a few bucks and get a device for one of the recognized developers?
3. Issues with kernel source and device tree from Xiaomi? Is there anything we can do about it?
4. Lack of proper TWRP? Btw. The Chinese TWRP is 130MB+ in size, whereas the proper one is usually 30MB+, I don't trust it at all. I think @mauronofrio is already working his magic and we will have a fully working TWRP soon.
Did I miss something? It's a great phone hardware wise, but the lack of custom ROMs is making it useless for people like us. I'm actually learning how to build custom ROMs because of that, so maybe I could create something, but it's not a trivial task, especially for an old-ish dude with not a lot of time on hand and who's just getting started.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm still waiting too
OnePlus is supporting the dev's, Xiaomi don't care.
For 4, if you compress that twrp with rar or 7zip, you can find the real size is about 32MB