Database Develop

[Q] Is gingerbread(Android 2.3) coming to the Galaxy S I9000?

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

[Q] How to get started making captivate roms

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.

[Q] Why is Cyanogen behind other ROMs for Gingerbread?

Hello everyone,
I was just curious how all these gingerbread ROMs for the Captivate are being released, and Cyanogen 2.3 for the Capitivate, having been worked on for months, is still only in pre-beta. I am not trying to be impatient, I know the devs are working hard to get cyanogen out ASAP, I was just curious why this was.
Thank you.

rcllcr said:
Hello everyone,
I was just curious how all these gingerbread ROMs for the Captivate are being released, and Cyanogen 2.3 for the Capitivate, having been worked on for months, is still only in pre-beta. I am not trying to be impatient, I know the devs are working hard to get cyanogen out ASAP, I was just curious why this was.
Thank you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
simply put CM7 is being written and developed from "scratch" and the jvb jvh roms are ported.

Not to mention that the CM7 for captivate is running 2.3.4 so technically "we're" behind CM7

betadan said:
Not to mention that the CM7 for captivate is running 2.3.4 so technically "we're" behind CM7
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not for long Most of the Devs are already working on JVH

AOSP is the way to go in the long run as more Samsung drivers get ported over. 2.4.x will probably never be ported to the Galaxy S phones by Samsung, but unless there are major kernel changes, upgrading CyanogenMod to 2.4 will happen relatively quickly.

nkrick said:
AOSP is the way to go in the long run as more Samsung drivers get ported over. 2.4.x will probably never be ported to the Galaxy S phones by Samsung, but unless there are major kernel changes, upgrading CyanogenMod to 2.4 will happen relatively quickly.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I see, so once it is caught up with the other cyanogen supported phones, it will be on the same update cycle, and therefore be more sustainable when it comes to new releases of android?

Frankly cm7 is actually being developed, where as the other ginger bread releases are being cooked/tweaked. Samsung did 80% of the work then xcal kicked in the next 15%.
So to answer your question, the reason it is "behind" is because they are not using a pre optimized build, and they are developing from the ground up.
Sent from my SGH-I897 using XDA Premium App

Since nobody seems to check the Q&A forum [Q] Kernel compiled in Ubuntu 12.04 fails

Since nobody seems to check the Q&A forum [Q] Kernel compiled in Ubuntu 12.04 fails
So i havent worked on a kernel in a while and decided id start workin on one again. Well I recently updated to 12.04 lts and no changes to my old source I just did a test compile and it wont boot. Same toolchain, source, ramdisk, etc.
Is there some sort of issue with compiling on 12.04?
Even redownloaded the source from my github and tried the toolchain recommended by samsung, stock tool chain, and 3 others and i still get nuthin. Just trying to compile a 2.2 kernel for the vibrant. No source i download works am i missing something?
does ANYONE have any ideas? I dont care who you are just something! I been at this for a freakin week and cant figure it out, ......i've changed nuthing but the OS and i really dont want to have to redo my entire setup because it is such a huge pain

Are you sure the kernel works? What is causing it to not boot?
I build ICS kernels just fine.
Check this and update tools for 12.04 http://source.android.com/source/initializing.html

trailblazerz11 said:
Are you sure the kernel works? What is causing it to not boot?
I build ICS kernels just fine.
Check this and update tools for 12.04 http://source.android.com/source/initializing.html
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
100% sure it works, its the same source as my old nightly# 3 kernel which i can flash and works fine. Its a 2.2 kernel so thatd be the main diff there, and I've already done the setup of the build environment. I dont get past the vibrant logo so i have no idea what the problem is >.< its driving me nuts
i tried the linaro TC, 2 diff code sourcery, google toolchain even, and no luck
I even started a fresh kernel from scratch and added just the EXT4/voodoo stuff and my ramdisk and still nuthin
so i remade my voodoo ramdisk and that still doesnt work.
I'm out of ideas, I've quadruple checked to make sure all my tools and erthing are installed......idk what the issue is

Not a developer but wouldn't downgrading to an older Ubuntu fix the problem? Btw I loved your gingerbread kernels and I hope you can get back to the top again Aim for 400mb ram with 720p and you will achieve something high

helikido said:
Not a developer but wouldn't downgrading to an older Ubuntu fix the problem? Btw I loved your gingerbread kernels and I hope you can get back to the top again Aim for 400mb ram with 720p and you will achieve something high
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Id rather not but it seems that might be the case -_- I gotta look into how well older versions of ubuntu suppport the BullDozer cores before i do i guess.....
also I only made GB kernels for the NS4g i think ? o .o Vibrant I had been workin on it but I like being able to have MSAA in my games and what felt like greater stability, so i scrapt the new projects in favor of specific features i use :3

Ecotox I really wish you or another dev could make an updated CM7.2 kernel with Voodoo Color, OC/UV, and performance tweaks since Glitch is outdated and probably won't be updated for CM7.2. I know most devs have gone to ICS kernels, but CM 7.2 is still snappier and better for gaming then ICS.

hurtz777 said:
Ecotox I really wish you or another dev could make an updated CM7.2 kernel with Voodoo Color, OC/UV, and performance tweaks since Glitch is outdated and probably won't be updated for CM7.2. I know most devs have gone to ICS kernels, but CM 7.2 is still snappier and better for gaming then ICS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've been gone working on a game project, so I really haven't been doing much android stuff in months. If I get some time I might but can't make promises. Don't take this the wrong way but I'm looking for some help if anyone has any ideas not requests or compliments on previous work (though both are appreciated)
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Can you use windows xp to compile kernels?

helikido said:
Can you use windows xp to compile kernels?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
no
10 char

No but ty for the try....looks like imma have to revert back to 11.10...so let it be known for best results on compiling android use Ubuntu 11. If u have Ubuntu 12 and it works fine then leave it and good for u
Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk 2

Hey there! Try downgrading gcc and g++ to version 4.4. If that doesn't work you can always just set up a dev VM in xen or vmware instead of blowing away the whole box. Hope that helps.

Will Nexus 7 get kernel 3.10?

And if so, how much longer do you think? Have you seen any hints or rumors plastered on the net? Do you have any links to evidence of 3.10 coming? Are we missing out on anything of importance that 3.10 brings?
Does anyone know why we are still on 3.1, which was released in 2011? I thought Nexus devices got all the good stuff first... Or are only custom roms and kernels using 3.1?

Android devices rarely get new kernel versions anyway since the kernels tend to be customized to work with a specific device, and the binary drivers are built for a specific version of the kernel. This is not as bad as it sounds tho, since a lot of stuff can be backported meaning you get functionality from a newer kernel without the actual kernel version changing. Even more common with custom kernels. For example there's ROMs for our device that uses the F2FS file system which first appeared in the 3.8 kernel and gotten big changes every version after that, and it runs just fine backported to the 3.1 kernel.

hencke said:
Android devices rarely get new kernel versions anyway since the kernels tend to be customized to work with a specific device, and the binary drivers are built for a specific version of the kernel. This is not as bad as it sounds tho, since a lot of stuff can be backported meaning you get functionality from a newer kernel without the actual kernel version changing. Even more common with custom kernels. For example there's ROMs for our device that uses the F2FS file system which first appeared in the 3.8 kernel and gotten big changes every version after that, and it runs just fine backported to the 3.1 kernel.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok, so this quote here from Linux.com about commits that look like they are made for Nexus 7 2012, is just wishful thinking? I hope not because 3.10 is a massive jump in technology, and possibly even in performance for our device.
there are architecture-specific commits for 3.10 in the kernel/tegra project, which points to development for the 2012 Nexus 7.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://www.linux.com/news/embedded-...roid-will-be-updated-to-the-v310-linux-kernel
EDIT: Ok, I see now, so many new things from 3.4 and 3.8 may already be in our 3.1 custom kernels? If Google releases a 3.10 for the N7 I hope our devs take advantage of it, instead of porting things over to 3.1. I'd like to see our device get Android 5.0 and kernel 3.10, that would really make me feel like this was one of the best investments I have ever made.

As I said, lots of the improvements from newer kernels have already been backported so there wouldn't be as big a difference in performance as you might think. The tegra commits are interesting, but sadly does not confirm anything. For example, the android police article on those same commits mentions that screenshots from the nexus 4 and 5 with the new android version still show them on kernel 3.4. The chance that the 2012 nexus 7 would get a kernel update while the nexus 5 seems awefully slim. I hope I'm wrong tho, since I think it would make things simpler for the custom kernel developers to base stuff on a newer kernel but I wouldn't get my hopes up...

hencke said:
As I said, lots of the improvements from newer kernels have already been backported so there wouldn't be as big a difference in performance as you might think. The tegra commits are interesting, but sadly does not confirm anything. For example, the android police article on those same commits mentions that screenshots from the nexus 4 and 5 with the new android version still show them on kernel 3.4. The chance that the 2012 nexus 7 would get a kernel update while the nexus 5 seems awefully slim. I hope I'm wrong tho, since I think it would make things simpler for the custom kernel developers to base stuff on a newer kernel but I wouldn't get my hopes up...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok, thanks for making it a little more clearer to me. I kept thinking our 3.1 kernel from 2011 was holding us back from getting one last great update. I think features are no longer needed and I just want them to push performance as far as this thing can be taken. So with ART and F2FS finally coming, I was hoping a better kernel would grace us as well. lol, but it looks like a newer kernel wouldn't do much that the devs haven't already done.
Thanks buddy for jumping in and clearing some of that up for me. :good:

Nvidia released their kernel 3.4.35 for tegra3