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
Related
Hi folks,
This is a noob question. I am unable to find any post related to stock Froyo for Galaxy S. Is something like this out yet ?
By stock I mean, Android as Google release it, without any reseller trash on it.
Thanks in advance
there is no froyo for SGS yet, at least not officially
much less a stock froyo
there are tons of phone killing Beta froyos if you feel brave
Thanks for letting me know. I am not confident yet in any beta out there, although a lot of phones are using it without any issue...
Hoping that stock will be released soon.
Thanks
It won't (be released soon).
Currently there are community efforts going on to try and get stock 2.1 run on the SGS but they still have a way to go.
After that, once samsung releases the sources for 2.2 they can start trying to get a stock 2.2 running. They have to wait for Samsung because of drivers and such.
Hoping that what they've learned from 2.1 can largely be reused there's a good chance a stock/AOSP 2.2 ROM could make it's way relatively fast to the SGS but for now, don't hold your breath.
Ladduro said:
Hi folks,
This is a noob question. I am unable to find any post related to stock Froyo for Galaxy S. Is something like this out yet ?
By stock I mean, Android as Google release it, without any reseller trash on it.
Thanks in advance
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I really don't think it can ever be called stock. All releases have to be configured and customised to the platform they are running on. With Linux or Windows it is all on the disk and web server, drivers etc etc. You cannot do this with phone firmware as the download would be huge.
And just like Windows or Linux there are some stock programs that each will install. So what can we call "stock"? Even the Nexux 2.2 has to be configured to it.
By stock/vanilla Android, I meant of course a modified one that includes drivers for SGS, but does not include any customer UI made by Samsung.
So stock UI, no additional garbage (iPhone garbage style in SGS case) would be what I really need to see on my phone.
Or maybe a faster way for this is to modify current Samsung ROM and remove TW and Samsung's apps.
Thanks
Ladduro said:
By stock/vanilla Android, I meant of course a modified one that includes drivers for SGS, but does not include any customer UI made by Samsung.
So stock UI, no additional garbage (iPhone garbage style in SGS case) would be what I really need to see on my phone.
Or maybe a faster way for this is to modify current Samsung ROM and remove TW and Samsung's apps.
Thanks
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Have a look in the Dev threads. There are several Roms that do that.
Hi Tehpriest,
Can you route me to a ROM mentioned by you ? I searched but in vane... no result.
Thanks
+1. Have been seeking a stock UI-based ROM for i9000T for a while now, with no luck.
Cheers!
There seems to now be some skilled developers starting to get Cyanogen 6 (a vanilla version of Froyo) onto the Galaxy S. Assuming they get it running - which I think is likely when Samsung release the source for their spin on Froyo - it will take a while before it's stable and fully featured.
There's a steep learning curve for working out how to backup then flash your phone with a new rom. It took me three days to go through forum posts working it out, and I've now got a beta version of Froyo working fine. My advice is to get Samsung's official upgrade Froyo when it's out and wait until the devs get a chance to get something better running.
Also, use 'Launcher pro' from the market to replace Samsung's launcher, which makes things a whole lot more familiar.
official froyo is out, the wait should be shorter now
I am hoping too for this. I really like to benefit of OOB Android experience as Galaxy S is my first android phone.
Looking forward to see if it... hopefully soon.
wasnt CyanogenMod working on a release for the galaxy s?
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.
Hello people,
i looked for Samsung Galaxy S Kernel 2.6.35 sources without success.
Simply Samsung is breaking GPLV2 license not releasing Gingerbread Kernel sources and releasing it on SamsFirmware.
Any one's got these sources?? If not i'll force Samsung to do that.
Well it was never officially released and when it is, that is when the kernel sources will be released.
SamFirmware isn't official. No Samsung Gingerbread build has been released officially.
When it's released on Kies to the public, you can expect that source will soon follow, it always does.
Next time to a tinsy bit of research before posting.
Do you mean that version XXJVK wasn't made by Samsung??
Even in testing level Samsung HAVE to disclose GPLV2 parts.
Before writing this i wasted a lot of time trying to make by myself a 2.6.35 version,
and obviously this is not the correct way.
luca.tiburzio said:
Do you mean that version XXJVK wasn't made by Samsung??
Even in testing level Samsung HAVE to disclose GPLV2 parts.
Before writing this i wasted a lot of time trying to make by myself a 2.6.35 version,
and obviously this is not the correct way.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are misinformed. Until the firmware becomes official it's considered non existant. Samsung doesn't have to give you anything until it's official.
P.S. The kernel is under GPLV3.
luca.tiburzio said:
Do you mean that version XXJVK wasn't made by Samsung??
Even in testing level Samsung HAVE to disclose GPLV2 parts.
Before writing this i wasted a lot of time trying to make by myself a 2.6.35 version,
and obviously this is not the correct way.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, for builds which aren't distributed, there is no need.. I still don't personally believe this one was meant to be (as I haven't seen any reports of installations by Kies)
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/...ke-google-to-open-up-internal-use-patches.ars
The GPL does not require companies to release the source code of patches and program modifications that aren't distributed
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
These builds weren't meant to be distributed, and I think it's fair for companies not to be forced to do so. Because they also probably need to scour over the additions with a fine toothed comb before release to ensure they aren't violating patents, etc. Whilst it is easy for us to sit on the sidelines and scream at them for not exposing their revision control system, from their perspective, they don't want to accidentally leak files they might get sued for..
Unrelated, IMHO, the GPL is a poor choice of licence for a computer kernel anyway, and the only reason why Linux has survived this far is because companies like Nvidia knowingly violate the terms.
The leak of Gingerbread came from XDA to Samfirmware .Samfirmware are nothing to do with Samsung .
Reported as a leaked service centre version .
jje
And the whole leak process for JVK was VERY odd and suspicious. It felt a bit more like a staged marketing event for some sections of XDA then anything else.
I would tend to agree that this version was never meant for release, even if we do believe the "service center" story. Therefore we will not see it via Kies or get its sources.
Once a version of Gingerbread IS released by Samsung properly, then everything here will get started the way it should. Until then, I am staying far away from Gingerbread on the i9000.
Once a version of Gingerbread IS released by Samsung properly, then everything here will get started the way it should. Until then, I am staying far away from Gingerbread on the i9000.
Likewise for me though i have tested it .
jje
JJEgan said:
Once a version of Gingerbread IS released by Samsung properly, then everything here will get started the way it should. Until then, I am staying far away from Gingerbread on the i9000.
Likewise for me though i have tested it .
jje
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
can you tell me your configuration please as i am also in uk
Rom Kitchin .
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=817703
Using XWJS8 wipe rom with Hardcore kernel
CSC is CPW carphone warehouse csc as it covers most networks .
Modem is JPY .
APPS THEMES etc as required .
jje
Auzy why you're talking about gpl-v3?
On kernel 2.6.35 root if you open file COPYING there is mention on GPLV2 from Torvalds.
Let me know if i'm wrong
Also my objective is different: i need samsung kernel 2.6.35 as Cyanogenmod isn't working or even compiling to me. Samsung is leaking voluntarily objective code without distributing source, and this sounds very dirty....
Continuing in this way i'll never have gingerbread running correctly on my hands.
I am looking for someone who owns the korean version of the LTE 8.9. My internet searches havent found anything, but I believe the device has been upgraded to ICS. If we can find someone with the device and who has updated, then we can build a working US version from it. If anyone can find the firmware online that also works.
Info: http://www.samsung.com/sec/consumer/mobile-phone/mobile-phone/skt/SHV-E140SZW3SC-support
Source: http://www.samsung.com/sec/ics/06_shv-e140s_ics_kies.html
I've been looking for that very thing since I posted in the official ics thread earlier. No luck so far...
orlandoxpolice said:
I am looking for someone who owns the korean version of the LTE 8.9. My internet searches havent found anything, but I believe the device has been upgraded to ICS. If we can find someone with the device and who has updated, then we can build a working US version from it. If anyone can find the firmware online that also works.
Info: http://www.samsung.com/sec/consumer/mobile-phone/mobile-phone/skt/SHV-E140SZW3SC-support
Source: http://www.samsung.com/sec/ics/06_shv-e140s_ics_kies.html
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i looked everywhere .. chinese site even korean site ... cant find the rom
or maybe we should get someone who read korean to check out the korean site and see when is the update actually out.....
i believe it says ics is coming ... but when
It appears the source for the SHV-E140S is now posted on opensource.samsung.com.
This is new in the last few days, I checked earlier in the week and it wasn't there... Yay!
there are 3 seperate versions... I'm downloading all of them ATM and see what is in there...
link: just scroll down until u see the device name. : http://opensource.samsung.com/reception/receptionSub.do?method=list&menu_item=mobile&classification1=mobile_phone
also there are 4 different files but only one is ICS update
I opened the ICS update and there are a few interesting things... but I don't know if the internals are identical to 8.9 so we could just copy the drivers over...
nvm, saw OP's signature. This one is based on Qualcomm, different from P7300/P7310.
The platform stuff from the opensource site is probably mostly useless, as it's going to be an asian version of android that likely doesn't have english support. Correct me if I'm wrong.. It's probably best to use the kernel to bring up CM9 on this device.
The kernel does have config selections for the I957, and it successfully builds with this option, unlike the I717 and I727 releases -- They both had the 957 option in the kernel config, but didn't include most the actual code bits to allow it to build for that device, and the bits it did include didn't compile, all sorts of compile errors as if it hadn't been QA'ed at all...
Also.. I found the binary package, for the SHV-E140S, hosted on xbigfile.naver.com at some torrent page: w3ww.matpclub.com/b/torrent/119077
http://xbigfile.naver.com/bigfileup...jK6MrFoCop6kvaxb9MxbZaxkoFqM9axi4Mo+4F6EwK6E=
Let me know if you need me to mirror this...
The SHV-140 and SGH-I957 are very similar.. If you look at the ifdefs in the kernel source code (CONFIG_KOR_MODEL_SHV_E140S vs CONFIG_USA_MODEL_SGH_I957) the only difference I could find is in the DSP module -- Includes wrapped in ifdef tags select arch/arm/mach-msm/qdsp6v2/timpani_profile_p5lte_att.h vs arch/arm/mach-msm/qdsp6v2/timpani_profile_p5lte_skt.h. These are the DSP codecs. These files contain several hundred KB of what appears to be binary code in hex for the DSP engine, and are extensively different. From what's there, it looks like most of it relates to handling audio streams at various bitrates, including mic, line in, headphone sources. It appears the DSP engines in these devices are pretty different?
So, the binary kernel for the SHV-140 isn't going to work well with the I957, even if only because of the DSP changes. This isn't too surprising.
I think the next step is to investigate getting the kernel into the CM9 build tree. Anyone a ninja with that sort of thing?
nrvate said:
The platform stuff from the opensource site is probably mostly useless...
The SHV-140 and SGH-I957 are very similar.. If you look at the ifdefs in the kernel source code ...
So, the binary kernel for the SHV-140 isn't going to work well with the I957, even if only because of the DSP changes. This isn't too surprising.
I think the next step is to investigate getting the kernel into the CM9 build tree. Anyone a ninja with that sort of thing?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Funny enough... I ran the above through Google Translate and it came out just the same! :silly:
Whatever you and/or the other brilliant devs can come up with as a path forward will I'm sure be farther along than it is now. Just let us tinkerers know what we can do to help. :highfive:
https://github.com/CyanogenMod/android_device_samsung_p5att
Looks like someone is starting a device tree for the P5 ATT version!
Jellybean branch too, looks like CM10. That'd sure be pretty awesome.
Already posted. Nevermind.
http://story537.tistory.com/category/갤럭시 시리즈 펌웨어/갤럭시탭 8.9 LTE
check out this site
i am not sure this is what we all are looking for
maybe it is ... maybe not ... cuz its in korean... and i dont understand it
madsatan said:
http://story537.tistory.com/category/갤럭시 시리즈 펌웨어/갤럭시탭 8.9 LTE
check out this site
i am not sure this is what we all are looking for
maybe it is ... maybe not ... cuz its in korean... and i dont understand it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's the ICS firmware for the SHV-E140S (SKT).
Someone flashed it and cant get past the samsung logo.
Hopefully, the Dev. will look at it.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I957 using xda app-developers app
lookin for ICS firmware
I cant update via Kies also FOTA,when it enter download mode,the tab is disconnect with PC!
Shv e140s JB download links in regular dev section. Need to grab links before mod edit/ closes.
Edit: ics not jb. Got excited for sec
see a ICS rom for E140S at : http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1943435
e140K
Yes I own a e140 but it's e140k. Still looking for the Stock ROM for ICS.
Got it
I have the stock firmware for SHV-E140K when it upgraded the firmware. It is HOME_SHV-E140K.UK22.1901_CL1174059_REV01_user_low_ship.tar.md5.
Can anyone do something with it? I will upload it to any site people prefer.
Hello, I'm a student from China, Tablet PC Samsung SHV-E140L Brush failed, and now can not boot, I need SHV-E140L BOOT.BIN file.This used to JTAG repair.Pro help me.Please send to 635854900 @ qq com. Thank you
Good Afternoon, people.
I am brazilian and I have a smartphone that did not get into US and European market. It's name is "Motorola D3" and the number associate to it is "XT920".
Motorola Brazil were suposed to provide de newest rom for this device (marketing promissess). It took they almost 1 year to launch the Android Kitkat version 4.4.2.
The problem is: We want the Cyanogenmod in our device and all the newest ROM's.
That been said, I start to study to try yo port or Build a AOSP ROM to XT920 and, therefore, a CM11.
No threads on "how to port / build" a rom for a New device went trhough this problem. This device runs as a Mediatek MTK6577. I've seen that the kernel for this processor was released, but I don't know how to handle the kernel with the device and ROM properly.
Another doubt is: what is the difference between port and build a ROM? I've seen videos of porting and building and it is not clear to me.
I have reached the point where I have to download the drivers, but, in the tutorial the person was dealing with a NEXUS, wich is much easier to build, since it have a native android support.
Anyway, I want to keep this project going, and I really need some help with this questions.
Thankyou
digo_santista said:
This device runs as a Mediatek MTK6577.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're screwed. MTK devices are extremely nightmarish to work with. Their kernel source is a mess and the platform source is an even bigger mess.
Even people who have had access to a complete OEM source code tree for an MT6589 device didn't succeed in getting the hacks to play nice with an AOSP source tree.
Android One has helped somewhat with devices that are released as part of the One program, but non-One MTK devices are still a nightmare.
The process of doing an AOSP bringup for a new device isn't particularly well defined because it is different for every device in existence. The only way to learn is by doing.
It helps a lot if a device with a similar chipset to yours is supported by whatever project you're trying to work with - for example most mid-to-high-end Qualcomm chipsets are not very difficult to work with. But MTK devices were nearly impossible to support with AOSP-derivative projects prior to One, and even after One, it seems like only Android One devices are "clean" enough to leverage Google's improvements to MTK support.
:/ should I waste more time or just drop it?
Entropy512 said:
You're screwed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What should I do? I just quit without trying? I understand that this is a huge problem. But, if I decide to take the chalenge, is there a chance to succeed?
I am trying to figure this out and I didn't found an answer to this question: can I use the kernel that is packed with my stock ROM (provided by motorola) to build or port a CM11 ROM?
Sorry to bother, but I is really keeping me up at night
Regards,
Cassio Rodrigo