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] lima drivers for mali 400 GPU

A question to the "pro":
Do you think the lima drivers, scheduled to be release next week after FOSDEM in Brussells, will be of some interest for our SGS2, running a mali 400 GPU ?
This project is open source drivers ARM Mali 200/400 from reverse-ingeenering.
http://limadriver.org/
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...tem&px=MTA1MjQ
http://www.codethink.co.uk/
Any opinion on this?

Moved To Q&A​
Please post all questions in the Q&A section​

It probably won't be of general interest for a long, long while as it seems it's not even actually functional yet. And there are multiple devices with Mali chipset already out in the wild so getting the binaries for use with custom ROMs isn't really a huge issue.
Of course in the future having open-sourced drivers will be quite beneficial in the sense that it'll be even easier to do custom ROMs, and the open-source drivers could possibly be faster than the proprietary ones if the devs manage to optimize them well. It remains to be seen, though.

WereCatf said:
...there are multiple devices with Mali chipset already out in the wild so getting the binaries for use with custom ROMs isn't really a huge issue.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry if this is hi-jacking the thread a little, but I'm interested in this area myself. The binaries (which I assume are like hardware drivers?) for hardware like the mali, they are the .ko files? Are the .so files needed too? I've got mali.ko and mali.so files on my devices stock firmware. Apparantly there's newer mali drivers out and I wanted to try to put them in a rom for my device that doesn't have an updated fw yet.
Would appreciate any help with this. Thanks

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

[Q] Building / porting for a "unusual" device

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

Camera modding/replacement

So would it be possible to replace the camera module with one from another Blu phone?
It seems as though it would be possible to replace it with one from the Blu Life One X2 since it looks almost the same. The only problem would be kernel support but maybe it is possible on stock ROM since it's all Blu phones anyway.
R1HD - http://www.ebay.com/itm/OEM-UNLOCKE...NT-REAR-FACING-BACK-MAIN-CAMERA-/162157693798
Life One X2 - http://www.ebay.com/itm/OEM-BLU-LIF...NT-REAR-FACING-BACK-MAIN-CAMERA-/162461927686
I may give it a go just to see but I'll wait on some feedback first.

This is extremely unlikely to work as the driver for the camera module is baked into the ROM. Android is not like most Linux systems that scan for known hardware and then loads the appropriate drivers. In Android, the correct drivers for all of the hardware models have to be built right into the operating system. There just isn't room to include drivers for hardware that isn't present.

goldblot said:
So would it be possible to replace the camera module with one from another Blu phone?
It seems as though it would be possible to replace it with one from the Blu Life One X2 since it looks almost the same. The only problem would be kernel support but maybe it is possible on stock ROM since it's all Blu phones anyway.
R1HD - http://www.ebay.com/itm/OEM-UNLOCKE...NT-REAR-FACING-BACK-MAIN-CAMERA-/162157693798
Life One X2 - http://www.ebay.com/itm/OEM-BLU-LIF...NT-REAR-FACING-BACK-MAIN-CAMERA-/162461927686
I may give it a go just to see but I'll wait on some feedback first.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
One is a mediatek, the other an Qcom... this probably won't work with just the stock kernel. If your bootloader is unlocked you could compile your own kernel that includes the necessary camera drivers, and then it might work... but that's assuming the connector for the camera is the same on each phone's motherboard