Related
Banging my head at the moment trying to figure out the meaning of this ?? please help this new guy.
It stands for "Andriod Open Source Project" and it is basically the completely vanilla version of Android you see running on a lot of phones. If you're really curious, don't mind flashing something new, and have a rooted Hero, flash Darchdroid. It's a completely AOSP ROM, overclocked and JIT'd, with a couple of extras thrown in by Cyanogen and Darchstar.
excellent advice, thanks very much for the information. I love this one!!
DevinXtreme said:
It stands for "Andriod Open Source Project" and it is basically the completely vanilla version of Android you see running on a lot of phones. If you're really curious, don't mind flashing something new, and have a rooted Hero, flash Darchdroid. It's a completely AOSP ROM, overclocked and JIT'd, with a couple of extras thrown in by Cyanogen and Darchstar.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, yes, that's exactly what it is, but not all of it. The AOSP is what lets us **** around with Google's OS to the extent that we do here on XDA. The AOSP is what makes Android different from iPhone and Windows Phone.
Dear developers,
i hope it is not too offensive, if so it's not my intention, but is there a way to make all your great ROMs compatible for nexus one SLCD!
Maybe you can share in this thread and it will make the development of compatible ROMs easier for you.
Many people would be happy about it.
Having a compatible recovery with RA RECOVYER 1.8.0.1 is more than just the first step.
Unfortunately I can not help you much, because i'm just consumer and no dev.
The issue is that after flashing several ROMs on SLCD the screen after the first splash screen stays black.
CM 6.0.0 is working after changing the update script before flashing.
I want to enjoy the great variety of your ROMs on my nexus one, so please try to help.
Thank you very much for your great work....!
I would just like straight answers.
Does SLCD support just require updated drivers?
Aren't the drivers included on AOSP?
And therefore, any ROM that draws straight from AOSP has the correct drivers?
Is it easier to install a custom ROM that supports SLCD if you have unlocked your bootloader?
Why is amon_RA 1.8.0.1 the only one that supports SLCD?
Why isn't 1.8.0.1 the most recent version available in the amon_RA recovery thread? And not the most current one listed in ROM manager?
You sound like someone owes you something. Which isn't the case.
Yes, updated drivers. Residing with the kernel, meaning updated kernel.
Yes, included in AOSP. Different tag/branch.
Which means - code needs to be imported/switches set/something else done. Not 1-minute job.
Bootloader doesn't matter. Not easier, not harder - just the same. It's done through recovery anyway.
Because Amon_Ra bothered to make one that supports SLCD.
Because there is a separate thread for it, and if you'd bother looking at the Nexus Wiki in Recovery section - you'd find it there, together with the note to flash it for SLCD. ROM Manager doesn't support SLCD, and in fact most, if not all, cases of "I flashed something and now I have a black screen" as of lately come from those that use ROM Manager. Why doesn't it support? Because it wasn't updated to support. Good reason not to use it and do things manually, at least until it starts supporting SLCD.
CM6 has SLCD support, Enomther is working on adding it, the rest of the devs are probably working on it too.
Jack_R1 said:
You sound like someone owes you something. Which isn't the case.
Yes, updated drivers. Residing with the kernel, meaning updated kernel.
Yes, included in AOSP. Different tag/branch.
Which means - code needs to be imported/switches set/something else done. Not 1-minute job.
Bootloader doesn't matter. Not easier, not harder - just the same. It's done through recovery anyway.
Because Amon_Ra bothered to make one that supports SLCD.
Because there is a separate thread for it, and if you'd bother looking at the Nexus Wiki in Recovery section - you'd find it there, together with the note to flash it for SLCD. ROM Manager doesn't support SLCD, and in fact most, if not all, cases of "I flashed something and now I have a black screen" as of lately come from those that use ROM Manager. Why doesn't it support? Because it wasn't updated to support. Good reason not to use it and do things manually, at least until it starts supporting SLCD.
CM6 has SLCD support, Enomther is working on adding it, the rest of the devs are probably working on it too.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do you know which branch in the AOSP includes support for Nexus One SLCD?
I've already tried the froyo branch without any success and android-2.2_r1.1 branch crashes while flashing.
Didn't check the commits since looking for a way to change MMS resolution (and didn't look beyond that ), so I'm sorry, but I'm not the person qualified to answer. Asking someone from CM team or Enomther might be a better idea to find the Google source (since those ROMs have incorporated the support).
Enomther is basing on r1.1, so it should be usable. Never tried to compile myself, so I can't be of help there....
CM has this commit in his github (from pershoot's log):
87f604b7d75e77af62a2074e993a91aa00f1fcf5 ([ARM] mahimahi: add support for Sony TFT panel)
These are 4 repositories that might also hold the commit:
http://htc-linux.org/wiki/index.php?title=Kernel#Qualcomm_QSD8xxxx
Roms based on froyo or gingerbread?
The discussion in the thread "30/Jun r1 (JFB) - MoDaCo Custom ROM for Samsung Galaxy S with Online Kitchen" is a bit confusing so I thought it best to make it a new topic to get it straight.
Will it be possible to make roms based on froyo, gingerbread or any other coming android version, before Samsung makes an update? As I understand psychoace it will be ”near impossible to get roms from other sources like Sense roms or Froyo”. Others are not so sure.
This is important as Samsung is known for its lack of interest in OS updates. Who knows if they will take gingerbread to GS? If they won't can it be done by the really smart guys?
I don't think even HTC will update there top line to V3 (ginger bread). Froyo is coming any way to GS in near future. Now ginger bread should be possible too as GS is power full enough to run. When? we should wait and see. Nexus just got updated to 2.2.
Will see how things go in future.
Samsung has released there kernel sources and there software sources. I haven't had a chance to look in to it deeply but if it has the code of the drivers etc.. it should be possible to merge (with some work obviously) sources and to compile froyo.
kimatrix said:
Samsung has released there kernel sources and there software sources. I haven't had a chance to look in to it deeply but if it has the code of the drivers etc.. it should be possible to merge (with some work obviously) sources and to compile froyo.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But don't those drivers only work with 2.1 and just simply won't with any version higher unless samsung releases new source and drivers for 2.2 and then 3.0. So if say samsung never releases anything any source/drivers that work with 3.0 then you would be out of luck to actually get everything to work.
MrDSL said:
But don't those drivers only work with 2.1 and just simply won't with any version higher unless samsung releases new source and drivers for 2.2 and then 3.0. So if say samsung never releases anything any source/drivers that work with 3.0 then you would be out of luck to actually get everything to work.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is true but if you have the full sources you are able to look what the differences are and maybe patch those by your self. Assume a wlan driver is using an function that has changed or is gone in 2.2, then you can try to patch that by finding the new one for it to work with. If you don't have the sources it's much harder to do those kind of things.
As I sad you have the sources so you can play by your self even if samsung does not do anything. It does not mean it's easy and it does not mean it can be done fast. But it does mean it could be done.
kimatrix said:
That is true but if you have the full sources you are able to look what the differences are and maybe patch those by your self. Assume a wlan driver is using an function that has changed or is gone in 2.2, then you can try to patch that by finding the new one for it to work with. If you don't have the sources it's much harder to do those kind of things.
As I sad you have the sources so you can play by your self even if samsung does not do anything. It does not mean it's easy and it does not mean it can be done fast. But it does mean it could be done.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But the video drivers are already compiled. Can they be easily decompiled? It's not a source file if it's already compiled.
psychoace said:
But the video drivers are already compiled. Can they be easily decompiled? It's not a source file if it's already compiled.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Can they be decompiled and made to work? Of course!
Will someone be motivated to do all this work? Unknown.
Besides drivers arent the only issue to getting a new version of Android on a phone. If you dont have source for any proprietary userland daemons/apps (like radio?) that communicate with the hardware you will be SOL on that as well.
MMMMMMMMM if we can do it for the G1 we can do it SGS...the question is when and how much work. The Galaxy S will be Samsung's flagship device for A YEAR so I'd hope to get Gingerbread...unless Samsung are really stupid. Especially with a lot of US launches, they'll be able to relaunch with Gingerbread as it comes is my hope.
psychoace said:
But the video drivers are already compiled. Can they be easily decompiled? It's not a source file if it's already compiled.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Who told you that??? The source code of the GPU as well as every other coprocessor is there.
The two .o file that started this all fiasco are ok and you as long as the make file include them in the build they would work perfectly.
All they have inside is a simple elf code to tell the s3c*** to do whatever it needs to do. A source code wouldn't have been beneficial as it would have to be compiled differently for a different ARM instruction set .
kitsune223 said:
Who told you that??? The source code of the GPU as well as every other coprocessor is there.
The two .o file that started this all fiasco are ok and you as long as the make file include them in the build they would work perfectly.
All they have inside is a simple elf code to tell the s3c*** to do whatever it needs to do. A source code wouldn't have been beneficial as it would have to be compiled differently for a different ARM instruction set .
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But when you need drivers for 2.2 the source code would be optimal because these drivers are not going to work without some hacking.
They are going to work as they are non kernel bound ELF files.
Guys this isn't a driver ,if it was a kernel module ( or "driver" s you call it) it would have been a .ko file and had a slightly different structure ( use readelf on a kernel module and then on this to see the difference). So no matter what it is when can use the compiled version as it not kernel bound
From quick inspection it seems like the injection code for the s3c*** . so basically its there so the kernel could reference to it when the code tells it to do so . So Basicly all we have to do is put it in the proper place when building the kerne.
So please DON'T PANIC
well the TP2 just got 2.2 FroYo (2.1 has more working drivers ATM).. but if we have it, how would it be different for the SGS to get FroYo?
You need to remember that while other companies can update kernel quite easily ( all the work is done for them by the chip manufacturer and some member of the community ) this isn't possible here as this is a chip only used in one android/other linux platform device and the company making the device also make the chip.
So give them a few weeks to work on it
J-Hop2o6 said:
well the TP2 just got 2.2 FroYo (2.1 has more working drivers ATM).. but if we have it, how would it be different for the SGS to get FroYo?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
let's just say it will be the first time a non Samsung Rom has worked on a Samsung Android phone.
psychoace said:
let's just say it will be the first time a non Samsung Rom has worked on a Samsung Android phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not true.
Look here: http://forum.samdroid.net/f28/lkmod-v-2-5-1-based-jce-en-upd-03-30-a-336/
I see a custom ROM made for the i5700
Everything is possible.
clubtech said:
Not true.
Look here: http://forum.samdroid.net/f28/lkmod-v-2-5-1-based-jce-en-upd-03-30-a-336/
I see a custom ROM made for the i5700
Everything is possible.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Did I say custom rom? No i said specifically non samsung based roms on a samsung device. That custom rom is based off of a Samsung rom.
This is the closest we have got to a Hero rom on a Samsung device.
http://androidforums.com/all-things-root-behold-2/60408-port-htc-hero-behold-2-wip.html
He couldn't get Rosie to boot so who knows what other problems he would of had after that (from the picture you can see he never got any network connection)
So there don't say I didn't give you any hope.
Froyo is offical. That's good, but we need to be looking past it to Gingerbread.
Froyo is announcedm confirmed, and now dated for the end of September, and that's great. But to me, that's not the question we need to be asking Samsung anymore, we need to be thinking past that.
The question people need to be asking Samsung, so we can get them on the record committed to it now, is will you release a Gingerbread update for the phone as long as the hardware is capable of supporting it. The OS is only 2-3 months from being unveiled if Google sticks to their time table, and if the rumors are true it'll be a much bigger overhaul than 2.1-2.2 is.
So unless we want our phones to be outdated before the end of the year, we need to start making a push as a community to get a commitment from Samsung to support not just the OS that was released 4 months ago, but also the much bigger one that's right around the corner.
2.2 is good.. proves everyone wrong who said "ooh its Samsung, of course they won't release Froyo."
but somehow, I doubt that samsung will somehow not upgrade SGS to 3.0. If they do, it might be a few months (at least) after everyone else gets it. The reason is, they could have new flagship devices out that they wanna push to the mass-markets, so putting gingerbread on that will boost the sales.
However, considering that they marketed the SGS so well, and have it well on its way, they might just put gingerbread on it
seriously, i see ads for SGS EVERYWHERE online.
mjgunn said:
[....]
So unless we want our phones to be outdated before the end of the year
[....]
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I totally expect that my phone will be outdated by then. That's a consequence of the world we live in But then again, i'm a nihilist
Hey Guys,
I'm a developer for a living, and I'm interested in possibly working on a custom rom for my captivate. I was doing some research on how to get started, but the stuff I found was for HTC phones and involved using a starter that only works for HTC stuff.
Where can I go to find information on doing this? I'm largely interested in trying to port gingerbread, but my understanding was that until we have the full source this wasn't really possible (at least for something actually useable on a daily basis). I see supercurio is working on gingerbread, so information specific to this would be really helpful.
Thanks guys, and sorry if this should have been put in the QA section, I figured it was related to development, and could possibly be a sticky if it leads to useful info.
Pretty broad question. First requirement, is obviously...learn java.
I'm not sure if there's any specific "HOW-TO CODE YOUR OWN CAPTIVATE ROM" threads anywhere; there's general information available on http://developer.android.com , but modifying ROM's depends on the device it was written for.
As far as porting gingerbread, it will be very difficult without source and will definitely require quite a bit of kernel work. For information specific on this, supercurio would be the one to ask. Of course, the IRC's are also a great place to get information.
By the way, welcome to XDA! And I commend your motivation to develop stuff for the community here.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=869614
Doc over in the I9000 forums has the above thread started. I look there.
geokhentix said:
Pretty broad question. First requirement, is obviously...learn java.
I'm not sure if there's any specific "HOW-TO CODE YOUR OWN CAPTIVATE ROM" threads anywhere; there's general information available on http://developer.android.com , but modifying ROM's depends on the device it was written for.
As far as porting gingerbread, it will be very difficult without source and will definitely require quite a bit of kernel work. For information specific on this, supercurio would be the one to ask. Of course, the IRC's are also a great place to get information.
By the way, welcome to XDA! And I commend your motivation to develop stuff for the community here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Again, I am a developer for a living. I know Java, I'm not looking for coding tutorials. I'm looking for information specifically regarding the captivate.
As far as gingerbread, it sounds like what you are saying is that what people like supercurio are working on is not really gingerbread? More of a Frankenstein created with the sdk, mashing together 2.2 kernels and what has been released for 2.3?
lbbo2002 said:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=869614
Doc over in the I9000 forums has the above thread started. I look there.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Looking at that thread, it appears the roms being made are just edited versions of already compiled roms? Is samsung not required to post the full source of their roms?
I'm assuming the issue with starting with the original android source, is that we wouldn't have drivers for half of the hardware in the phone. Is the only choice then to load the already compiled drivers from the samsung builds into the rom?
epoplive said:
Again, I am a developer for a living. I know Java, I'm not looking for coding tutorials. I'm looking for information specifically regarding the captivate.
As far as gingerbread, it sounds like what you are saying is that what people like supercurio are working on is not really gingerbread? More of a Frankenstein created with the sdk, mashing together 2.2 kernels and what has been released for 2.3?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are different levels of making ROMs IMO.
You can combine work from others and make your own ROM. This requires no coding experience. For instance, I took JH7_OTA, dropped in Atinms Voodoo 3 kernel, removed bloatware, added my own custom framework (icons), etc., signed it and flashed it.
Then there is the whole Kernel side of things that requires an entire development environment (Linux) and C/C++ programming skills. I'm trying to get to this point. You can start by downloading the source and building it in your own environment familiarizing yourself with the codebase.
Indeed. Packing a ROM and making the contents of the ROM are two different sides of the spectrum. Even some minor framework modifications can be performed by the most tech-inept, as long as they have a good resource to work off of.
epoplive said:
Again, I am a developer for a living. I know Java, I'm not looking for coding tutorials. I'm looking for information specifically regarding the captivate.
As far as gingerbread, it sounds like what you are saying is that what people like supercurio are working on is not really gingerbread? More of a Frankenstein created with the sdk, mashing together 2.2 kernels and what has been released for 2.3?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was only prodding fun when I mentioned learning Java, just to break the ice. All I'm saying is trial and error is the best way to learn Android if you're already a decent programmer. Without knowing what the source code looked like before Samsung owned it, we don't really have a base environment to work off of, which means we are modifying work that was already modified from stock; which is why it will be pretty hard to find a lot of definitive coding information about the Captivate.
Supercurio isn't making a frankenstein 2.2-2.3 hybrid. The kernel is where all of the information about your hardware resides. Supercurio needs to take the Gingerbread kernel from the Nexus S, and modify it to run with our hardware. You can't run a 2.3 ROM without a 2.3 kernel; so we CAN'T use a 2.2 kernel to run full gingerbread; and since a 2.3 kernel doesn't exist for the Captivate, he is using the Nexus s's kernel as a base, or as a reference to merge the differences between the two, creating a kernel that will support the Nexus S ROM on a phone that isn't the Nexus S.
epoplive said:
Looking at that thread, it appears the roms being made are just edited versions of already compiled roms? Is samsung not required to post the full source of their roms?
I'm assuming the issue with starting with the original android source, is that we wouldn't have drivers for half of the hardware in the phone. Is the only choice then to load the already compiled drivers from the samsung builds into the rom?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Correct. We don't have the source code for Froyo yet for the Captivate(or an OTA for that matter ), a lot of ROM's being made are based off of the SGS I9000 2.2 source, and because we have that source, we have a pretty much fully functional "captivated" i9000 kernel.
geokhentix said:
Indeed. Packing a ROM and making the contents of the ROM are two different sides of the spectrum. Even some minor framework modifications can be performed by the most tech-inept, as long as they have a good resource to work off of.
I was only prodding fun when I mentioned learning Java, just to break the ice. All I'm saying is trial and error is the best way to learn Android if you're already a decent programmer. Without knowing what the source code looked like before Samsung owned it, we don't really have a base environment to work off of, which means we are modifying work that was already modified from stock; which is why it will be pretty hard to find a lot of definitive coding information about the Captivate.
Supercurio isn't making a frankenstein 2.2-2.3 hybrid. The kernel is where all of the information about your hardware resides. Supercurio needs to take the Gingerbread kernel from the Nexus S, and modify it to run with our hardware. You can't run a 2.3 ROM without a 2.3 kernel; so we CAN'T use a 2.2 kernel to run full gingerbread; and since a 2.3 kernel doesn't exist for the Captivate, he is using the Nexus s's kernel as a base, or as a reference to merge the differences between the two, creating a kernel that will support the Nexus S ROM on a phone that isn't the Nexus S.
Correct. We don't have the source code for Froyo yet for the Captivate(or an OTA for that matter ), a lot of ROM's being made are based off of the SGS I9000 2.2 source, and because we have that source, we have a pretty much fully functional "captivated" i9000 kernel.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah, thanks, that's pretty much the information I was looking for.
The reason I ask is because image-based ROMs seem to be trouble-free, even if you flash Cataclysm mod over it to get some customization w/o using Xposed.
I would imagine that image-based ROMs would be better for the device, since they are build specifically for the device. As opposed to AOSP ROMs which are built from source, then customized to work with the device.
The reason I ask is because I keep bouncing between TuPac's stripped-down image-based ROM and PureNexus.
Any thoughts around this?
MrBrady said:
The reason I ask is because image-based ROMs seem to be trouble-free, even if you flash Cataclysm mod over it to get some customization w/o using Xposed.
I would imagine that image-based ROMs would be better for the device, since they are build specifically for the device. As opposed to AOSP ROMs which are built from source, then customized to work with the device.
The reason I ask is because I keep bouncing between TuPac's stripped-down image-based ROM and PureNexus.
Any thoughts around this?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
theres no such thing as "customized to work with the device" for a nexus. aosp is made to work on nexus devices, period. and no, its the same exact thing technically. its like zips, they are all different. some forms compress your stuff down a little, some much more. yet at the end, they are exactly the same.
when you are flashing an aosp based rom, its made exactly for your device, period. this isnt a samsung device, which needs a modded aosp rom to run, its a nexus, what aosp roms are made for. oh, and those stock based image roms. i wouldnt consider them real roms. id consider them basic stock roms with stuff just thrown in. aosp roms they build from scratch, with the options/features built in.
simms22 said:
theres no such thing as "customized to work with the device" for a nexus. aosp is made to work on nexus devices, period. and no, its the same exact thing technically. its like zips, they are all different. some forms compress your stuff down a little, some much more. yet at the end, they are exactly the same.
when you are flashing an aosp based rom, its made exactly for your device, period. this isnt a samsung device, which needs a modded aosp rom to run, its a nexus, what aosp roms are made for. oh, and those stock based image roms. i wouldnt consider them real roms. id consider them basic stock roms with stuff just thrown in. aosp roms they build from scratch, with the options/features built in.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for your response. I understand all that.
It seems like more can go wrong with AOSP-based ROMs since they are built and not provided from the factory image. Take Android Pay for example. It simply works on image-based ROMs but requires fixes or certain work-arounds to work on AOSP-based ROMs (flash a certain Gapps, make sure root is systemless, etc).
In my experience, and maybe it's just my device, but it seems like image-based ROMs run more fluid, but AOSP-based ROMs are faster, if that makes any sense. It almost seems like the image-based ROMs are better optimized for the device or something but they seem to slow down over time, the more the device is used.
MrBrady said:
Thanks for your response. I understand all that.
It seems like more can go wrong with AOSP-based ROMs since they are built and not provided from the factory image. Take Android Pay for example. It simply works on image-based ROMs but requires fixes or certain work-arounds to work on AOSP-based ROMs (flash a certain Gapps, make sure root is systemless, etc).
In my experience, and maybe it's just my device, but it seems like image-based ROMs run more fluid, but AOSP-based ROMs are faster, if that makes any sense. It almost seems like the image-based ROMs are better optimized for the device or something but they seem to slow down over time, the more the device is used.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well, first off, aosp and stock are two completely different roms. stock roms also have closed source code included, where aosp roms dont have that code included, so they WILL run differently, as two different roms should.
---------- Post added at 03:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:58 PM ----------
anyways, the answer to your question is really simple.. better is whatever is better for you,personally. to you, image based roms are better. for me, aosp is better.
as a real answer of which is better doesnt exist, its all which is better for you(or me).
Had you followed the rules you would know threads like this don't stay open long.
There is no best. Or better. There is only what works for you.
Most people that get a nexus device do it for the active development. Which does mean some bugs here and there, but that is the fun. In learning, finding and killing bugs. If you got a nexus for any other reason you really are not doing yourself any favors.