Database Develop

[DEVS ONLY][BCM21553] Samsung Galaxy Pocket GT-S5300 (Cori) Development Discussion

General informations:
This thread's aim is only to represent a central meeting and discussion point for BCM21553 developers and, in particular, for the open Kernel/ROM sources development for the Samsung Galaxy Pocket GT-S5300 (codenamed Cori).
Information for common users:
As already described in the previous section, if you are not a developer, please restrict your posts to the general discussion thread so that developers can maintain good communication. Every post that is not strictly respecting these rules will be reported to the forum moderators. Thanks for your understanding.
For any other BCM21553 device related question or information, please, use this thread as a reference point, instead:
[DEVS ONLY][BCM21553 series] CyanogenMod 11 for BCM21553 Development Discussion

As someone already might know, I'm streambinder, from MoltenMotherBoard team.
I have already followed some projects for the GT-S5300, but especially kept in contact
with some of the events related to the porting of ROM and Kernel sources for BCM21553 chipset based devices.
In this precise moment, the sources in my possession allow you to be able to compile
a bugfree CWM 5.0.2.8 (based on CyanogenMod 7 code) with a kernel based on the Samsung stock one.
The only - fundamental - problem was due to the fact that unless I hadn't used the prebuilt INIT binary
token in the Samsung stock firmware boot.img, the phone would not work - or, better, boot up.
This means that until the situation - regarding this issue - doesn't change, our access to the porting of custom ROM
would be barred.
Recently, I decided to give Cori another chance and rework my sources, looking at the wonderful work brought
by the BroadcomCM team on CyanogenMod 9 (in particular, thanks to @bieltv.3 and @Alberto96) and @psyke83 on CyanogenMod 11.
They've not only been able to run these two ROMs in a more or less crude way, but this developer has been able to write
the necessary strings to make the INIT binary of some of these BCM21553 devices opensource.
Strong of this informations, I readjusted some of the sources of BroadcomCM's CyangenMod 9, which includes
all the progress carried out by both the team and psyke83, in order to make them work even on Cori,
and am now next to the first test of the CWM 6.X.X.X, based on IceCreamSandwich code.
At the same time, @akhbh is working on the KitKat code based CWM.
I hope I can give more information about any progress as soon as possible.

The General Discussion thread for non-development issues is here:
*.[DISCUSSION] CyanogenMod 11 For Galaxy Pocket GT-S5300 Discussion Thread

Made a first test of CWM based on CyanogenMod 9 code.
It seems it cannot flash it as it weighs so much compared to its partition configuration value: in fact, the maximum boot partition size is set up to 5.0MB, but the compiled boot.img weighs 5.3MB.
Will have to resize its weight in order to make it fill into the partition.
@akhbh, have you had any complication in these terms, with CyanogenMod 11 sources?
@psyke83, what do you suggest to do? Do you think an increasement of boot partition would be a better idea?

streambinder said:
Made a first test of CWM based on CyanogenMod 9 code.
It seems it cannot flash it as it weighs so much compared to its partition configuration value: in fact, the maximum boot partition size is set up to 5.0MB, but the compiled boot.img weighs 5.3MB.
Will have to resize its weight in order to make it fill into the partition.
@akhbh, have you had any complication in these terms, with CyanogenMod 11 sources?
@psyke83, what do you suggest to do? Do you think an increasement of boot partition would be a better idea?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, I didn't faced those complications. My boot.img weighted around 4.5 MB in lzma compression mode. In gzip, it increased to more than 5 mb.

akhbh said:
No, I didn't faced those complications. My boot.img weighted around 4.5 MB in lzma compression mode. In gzip, it increased to more than 5 mb.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Perfect.
Which kernel have you based your build on?

streambinder said:
Perfect.
Which kernel have you based your build on?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, I took the GeTux kernel for cori, had to change the board name though and then compile it. CWM was booting even before changing the board name but there was no reaction from the phone on trying to boot cm9/cm11
And after changing board name, a black screen on trying to boot
Another info: When tried to merge cori source into the bcm21553 common one, it did compile but gave bootloop of GT-S5300 logo on trying to boot as well as when trying to go in CWM.
Bieltv.3 recommended to use cori source instead of the bcm21553 common one so we used cori sources

akhbh said:
Well, I took the GeTux kernel for cori, had to change the board name though and then compile it. CWM was booting even before changing the board name but there was no reaction from the phone on trying to boot cm9/cm11
And after changing board name, a black screen on trying to boot
Another info: When tried to merge cori source into the bcm21553 common one, it did compile but gave bootloop of GT-S5300 logo on trying to boot as well as when trying to go in CWM.
Bieltv.3 recommended to use cori source instead of the bcm21553 common one so we used cori sources
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I suggest to use our Kernel sources for now, too: it will automatically bypass few errors/issues/bootloops that we cannot now fight with.
The most important thing is to make INIT working from sources (hope it will be working
on my CM9 sources, too) and check that every our configuration is correctly working and
making Cori boot into recovery.
Once we'll make it perfectly working without any kind of issue, will be the right time to try
to make Cori supported with the BC21553-common kernel.

streambinder said:
I suggest to use our Kernel sources for now, too: it will automatically bypass few errors/issues/bootloops that we cannot now fight with.
The most important thing is to make INIT working from sources (hope it will be working
on my CM9 sources, too) and check that every our configuration is correctly working and
making Cori boot into recovery.
Once we'll make it perfectly working without any kind of issue, will be the right time to try
to make Cori supported with the BC21553-common kernel.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Okay, I will use your kernel sources and try if something is changed once I reach home. For now, I neither have this device nor a PC, as I'm in another city.
Will be keenly watching your work. Will start after reaching home around the end of September

akhbh said:
Okay, I will use your kernel sources and try if something is changed once I reach home. For now, I neither have this device nor a PC, as I'm in another city.
Will be keenly watching your work. Will start after reaching home around the end of September
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No problem, mate.
Here you have every source in my possession:
platform_kernel_samsung_cori
platform_device_samsung_cori
Keep in contact with me, as I will need some informations by you.
Anyway I'm now making another build, keeping some not so much important binaries excluded, so that I can make the compiled boot.img fill into our little Cori's boot partition. I know it's a dirty workaround, but if it works, I'll use it untill @psyke83 will suggest me a better way to do.

streambinder said:
No problem, mate.
Here you have every source in my possession:
platform_kernel_samsung_cori | github.com
platform_device_samsung_cori
Keep in contact with me, as I will need some informations by you.
Anyway I'm now making another build, keeping some not so much important binaries excluded, so that I can make the compiled boot.img fill into our little Cori's boot partition. I know it's a dirty workaround, but if it works, I'll use it untill @psyke83 will suggest me a better way to do.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
have u tried to build cwm v6 from cm9 source ??

cleverior.ipul said:
have u tried to build cwm v6 from cm9 source ??
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Of course, mate. I'm working on it, right now.
It doesn't seem to boot, strange if the same INIT binary sources are working for @akhbh.
#UPDATE
In order to troubleshoot, I'll give you some info.
For his build I used these sources:
platform_kernel_samsung_cori
platform_device_samsung_cori
android_device_samsung_bcm21553-common
Applied some lines on our bcm21553-bootimg.mk, too, in order to exclude parted and mke2fs and make the compiled boot.img weigh less.
@cleverior.ipul, can you link me your kernel sources, as akhbh said he used your ones for CM11.
@akhbh, which modifies have you applied in order to compile CWM based on CM11 code? Which device tree?
#UPDATE 2
Attached my compiled boot.img.
If anyone of you would extract it (you can easily use this tool: bootimgtools - read how to use it in the README) and make a diff with the CM11 one (just extract the ramdisk of both boot.imgs and - in the terminal - use this command: diff -urN /path/to/cm9/ramdisk /path/to/cm11/ramdisk > diff.patch), would make to me a huge favour.
Let me know.

streambinder said:
Of course, mate. I'm working on it, right now.
It doesn't seem to boot, strange if the same INIT binary sources are working for @akhbh.
#UPDATE
In order to troubleshoot, I'll give you some info.
For his build I used these sources:
platform_kernel_samsung_cori
platform_device_samsung_cori
android_device_samsung_bcm21553-common
Applied some lines on our bcm21553-bootimg.mk, too, in order to exclude parted and mke2fs and make the compiled boot.img weigh less.
@cleverior.ipul, can you link me your kernel sources, as akhbh said he used your ones for CM11.
@akhbh, which modifies have you applied in order to compile CWM based on CM11 code? Which device tree?
#UPDATE 2
Attached my compiled boot.img.
If anyone of you would extract it (you can easily use this tool: bootimgtools - read how to use it in the README) and make a diff with the CM11 one (just extract the ramdisk of both boot.imgs and - in the terminal - use this command: diff -urN /path/to/cm9/ramdisk /path/to/cm11/ramdisk > diff.patch), would make to me a huge favour.
Let me know.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think we didn't had significant changes. Perhaps the same as totoro. But, that resulted in the internal_sd not mounting error in cwm.
Sadly, as said before, I am away from my home city and can't provide the files to you and can't do the boot.img diffs as well
Try to ask psyke83, he might have a solution for that

akhbh said:
I think we didn't had significant changes. Perhaps the same as totoro. But, that resulted in the internal_sd not mounting error in cwm.
Sadly, as said before, I am away from my home city and can't provide the files to you and can't do the boot.img diffs as well
Try to ask psyke83, he might have a solution for that
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then, if you didn't make any massive change upon the sources, then I'll only try using your kernel.
Can you give me your kernel sources, mate, please?

streambinder said:
Then, if you didn't make any massive change upon the sources, then I'll only try using your kernel.
Can you give me your kernel sources, mate, please?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Currently, I can provide you the boot.img only. For the sources, @cleverior.ipul can provide the kernel sources coz as said earlier, his kernel is used. Well, we were working together to bring cm11 but weren't successful

akhbh said:
Currently, I can provide you the boot.img only. For the sources, @cleverior.ipul can provide the kernel sources.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok, please send it to me, will compare it with my package.

streambinder said:
Ok, please send it to me, will compare it with my package.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Here it is:
http://www.4shared.com/zip/1nKFbOJ2ba/ccccGetux_CM11.html

streambinder said:
Of course, mate. I'm working on it, right now.
It doesn't seem to boot, strange if the same INIT binary sources are working for @akhbh.
#UPDATE
In order to troubleshoot, I'll give you some info.
For his build I used these sources:
platform_kernel_samsung_cori
platform_device_samsung_cori
android_device_samsung_bcm21553-common
Applied some lines on our bcm21553-bootimg.mk, too, in order to exclude parted and mke2fs and make the compiled boot.img weigh less.
@cleverior.ipul, can you link me your kernel sources, as akhbh said he used your ones for CM11.
@akhbh, which modifies have you applied in order to compile CWM based on CM11 code? Which device tree?
#UPDATE 2
Attached my compiled boot.img.
If anyone of you would extract it (you can easily use this tool: bootimgtools - read how to use it in the README) and make a diff with the CM11 one (just extract the ramdisk of both boot.imgs and - in the terminal - use this command: diff -urN /path/to/cm9/ramdisk /path/to/cm11/ramdisk > diff.patch), would make to me a huge favour.
Let me know.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
here the link source https://github.com/cleverior/android_kernel_samsung_cori
i've changed the board name. If your device can not boot after using the zImage from this source, then rename init.bcm21553.rc to init.gt-s5300.rc.

@streambinder, what is grom? As bieltv.3 said that init built grom for cori is required to fix adb over cwm recovery. If adb gets working, then possibly the black screen while booting cm11 might get fixed

akhbh said:
@streambinder, what is grom? As bieltv.3 said that init built grom for cori is required to fix adb over cwm recovery. If adb gets working, then possibly the black screen while booting cm11 might get fixed
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sincerely don't what are you talking about.
Anyway, have to try to understand where's the problem with the not-booting CWM.
Will try with your sources and let you know.

[PATCH] Kexec-hardboot patch

In this post, I would like to explain what kexec-hardboot patch is.
@kernel developers: I would like to ask you to merge this patch to your kernels, because it is essential part of MultiROM - it allows to boot any kernel without changing the boot partition. I realize that it is no small request, but the patch is not big, touches relatively stable parts of kernel and should not cause any problems. Thank you.
What is kexec?
It is syscall of Linux kernel, which allows you to boot another Linux kernel without restarting the device - "Linux boots itself". The functionality is equivalent to fastboot -c *cmdline* boot zImage initrd.img, but without PC and fastboot. It is fairly known thing, so more info at wikipedia and man kexec.
What is the difference between normal and hardboot exec?
Kexec-hardboot patch adds a real device restart to that process, so that all the drivers can be properly reinitialized. It stores new kernel to RAM, reboots the device as usual, and kernel from boot partition immediately jumps to the one which was stored to RAM before reboot.
Unlike grouper's kexec-hardboot patch, this one only requires the host kernel to be patched. This is one of the improvements Tasssadar made, and I think it is pretty significant.
To sumarize the process:
kexec --load-hardboot.... is called and kernel it loaded into RAM.
kexec -e is called. Special info is written to memory (to area which is not overwritten on reboot) and the device is rebooted.
After reboot, very early in the boot process, kernel checks if that special info is present in RAM and if so, it loads new kernel from RAM and jumps to it.
Kexecd' kernel starts and boots.
For more info, read the original thread.
Patches:
Kernel patch: https://gist.github.com/PatrikKT/50faf32e8931d51c0c9a,
This is the kernel patch. Only the host kernel needs to be patched.
Related CONFIG options:
CONFIG_KEXEC=y
CONFIG_KEXEC_HARDBOOT=y
CONFIG_PROC_DEVICETREE=y
CONFIG_ATAGS_PROC=n # This one is turned on automatically, but it is not needed, so you can disable it.
All these options must be enabled.​
Userspace kexec binary: https://github.com/Tasssadar/kexec-tools
I had to change some things in kexec userspace binary because of some kernel bugs, complete description is in that repository. You can get statically built binary at https://github.com/Tasssadar/multirom/blob/master/install_zip/prebuilt-installer/multirom/kexec​
Usage:
Once you have the kernel patches and kexec userspace binary in place, just run following command to boot into new kernel:
Code:
kexec --load-hardboot zImage --initrd=initrd.img --mem-min=0x20000000 --command-line="$(cat /proc/cmdline)" --dtb
kexec -e
Note the command line parameter - cmdline from bootloader is not added automatically, you have to put it there by yourself.
Authors:
This patch was made by Mike Kasick for Samsung Epic 4G. Since that, it was ported to several devices, one of them is Asus Transformer TF201 - he used patch from TF201 and modified it a bit (basically just changed few SoC specific constants). People at #ubuntu-arm helped him out with that, thanks.
For hammerhead, he has improved the patch a bit - only the host needs to be patched now and he has added support for DTB.
This thread was used as a template Credits to @Tasssadar for his Nexus 5 patch

Awesome people helping with our G2's development. Thank YOU!

patrik.KT said:
I would like to ask you to merge this patch to your kernels, because it is essential part of MultiROM - it allows to boot any kernel without changing the boot partition.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What benefit would there be to non-MultiROM users? (Just curious.)

blastagator said:
What benefit would there be to non-MultiROM users? (Just curious.)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Any. Just any.

Actually I can't think of anything. It's only to bring the device to a full reboot to load a new kernel.
Odoslané z môjho HTC Desire 601

blastagator said:
What benefit would there be to non-MultiROM users? (Just curious.)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not for common user, in epic4g kexec used by kernel devs to test a new kernel build without replace the existing kernel.
They just load a temporary kernel to test. Then that kernel will gone after a reboot.

Hope to see new kernels that support MultiRom! Great work man!

Would this allow a multiboot with AOSP and Stock roms?

AbdulrahmanAmir said:
it doesnt work while i have stock and the secondary is aosp (dU-dirty.unicorn) when i boot the secondary it works sound only but no display just black screen plzz help
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The patch is not necessary at the moment, because of the locked bootloader. It's just for devs to be prepared with their kernel when we can unlock the bootloader, so that multirom will work as it should.
Odoslané z môjho HTC Desire 601

Thanks for your great thread. But there is no instruction about how we can add that patch to kernel source. Could you write more details about implanting this patch?

No response??

mohamaadhosein said:
No response??
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Download the patch file from first post and place it in the kernel root directory. Then you should use this command to check if there are any conflicts: git apply --check <path_to>.patch
If there are no errors, use this to apply: git apply <path_to>.patch
Sorry for the late response but I checked xda when I wasn't home and I forgot to reply when I got home
Odoslané z môjho HTC Desire 601

Hey, some changes need to be made to the patch.
On line 353, change the number from 22 to 21. Also, it has some errors when modifying head.S, which I had to fix manually..
But guys, my kernel is building with the latest multirom. This **** is going to maybe work soon!
I'll keep you all posted.

Thank you man

Guys, I think I've done it. Kexec hardboot patched kernel for 5.1.1 and thus multirom compliant, which I am preparing to build with twrp. this is very exciting.

When will it be ready?

Are you kidding me? No ETAs. I literally haven't even announce it yet and somebody asks for an ETA.... It will be ready once I test everything to boot well on my device.

patrik.KT said:
Download the patch file from first post and place it in the kernel root directory. Then you should use this command to check if there are any conflicts: git apply --check <path_to>.patch
If there are no errors, use this to apply: git apply <path_to>.patch
Sorry for the late response but I checked xda when I wasn't home and I forgot to reply when I got home
Odoslané z môjho HTC Desire 601
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It says the patch is corrupted on the line 375

[ROM][AOSP 6.0.1_r10]AOSP MM-MR1-RELEASE branch by khaon

Hello everyone,
I have successfully built a package for this device. While the factory images is android-6.0.1_r5, this package features android-6.0.1_r10 along with the optimization flags I use for my other devices.
Instructions:
You need to get a custom recovery, this recovery should work
Boot into twrp
flash the package
optional: factory reset.
I haven't tested this as I am at work currently, so if anyone want to try before I get home do it
LINK​
XDA:DevDB Information
AOSP for Pixel C, ROM for the Google Pixel C
Contributors
Khaon, Namastaz
ROM OS Version: 6.0.x Marshmallow
Version Information
Status: Alpha
Beta Release Date: 2016-01-12
Created 2016-01-12
Last Updated 2016-01-12

Sweet! Does this have root integrated, by chance?

oRAirwolf said:
Sweet! Does this have root integrated, by chance?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No it doesn't. I could tho, I will see how thing evolves. I had my nexus 10 ramdisk patched for SuperSU. But I think now the flashing package cheks your partitions.

Guys just a reminder: don't flash SuperSU ZIP directly. That goes for stock as well as builds like khaon's (just a heads up), but rather one of the existing root options. Flashing a ZIP that tries to modify the kernel, like SuperSU systemless will fail on the Pixel C and might semi-brick your tablet.

cheep5k8 said:
Guys just a reminder: don't flash SuperSU ZIP directly. That goes for stock as well as builds like khaon's (just a heads up), but rather one of the existing root options. Flashing a ZIP that tries to modify the kernel, like SuperSU systemless will fail on the Pixel C and might semi-brick your tablet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I read somewhere you were saying that the boot image is chromeos alike. Could you link me some source-code so I can see and understand the differences and how chromeos bootimage are built ? I looked at the chromeos's sources but i couldnt figure out where to look at.

Basically the kernel image is a depthcharge (the bootloader) payload that contains the Android kernel which then boots Android.
Depthcharge (bootloader source code with fastboot code): https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/platform/depthcharge/
Other relevant project there is also vboot_reference.
---------- Post added at 11:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:37 AM ----------
It's not just ChromeOS-like... up to the point where the Android kernel boots Android it's completely like on a Chromebook.

But, sourse code?

So is this using the stock boot image?

Sorry for the late reply...
Martin_Devil said:
But, sourse code?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ewww, I am using this android revision
This tag points to the marshmallow-mr1-release.
There are no sources as it was built with the default sources, however, this was the build platform
bill3508 said:
So is this using the stock boot image?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes it is using the stock boot image.

Thank you! Could someone please upload the build.prop file? TIA!

Thanks a ton man. I've heard this device is more difficult than other devices to build for. When my type C cables and adapters show up tomorrow I will be unlocking the bootloader, flashing TWRP, nand backup, and then I'm going to try your ROM and then the kernel that's available. So it's going to be a good day .

Sjflowerhorn said:
Thanks a ton man. I've heard this device is more difficult than other devices to build for. When my type C cables and adapters show up tomorrow I will be unlocking the bootloader, flashing TWRP, nand backup, and then I'm going to try your ROM and then the kernel that's available. So it's going to be a good day .
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You may just want to root the stock ROM. This ROM has not been updated to the new base, which has fixes for the touchscreen issues.

[TWRP][INFINIX][3.0.2-0] TWRP for Infinix Hot-2

Keeping it short and simple, this is a source compiled version of TWRP 3.0.2-0 for the HOT-2. I have based it on @Nonta72's device tree with Infinix hardware configs. If this works for you, please report as such so I can get it official. Officially supported device get automatic builds which are made available at dl.twrp.me/<device_codename> at each major release. Thank you.
Download : My Website
XDA:DevDB Information
TWRP for HOT 2, Tool/Utility for the Infinix HOT 2
Contributors
MSF Jarvis, Nonta72
Version Information
Status: Testing
Created 2016-04-13
Last Updated 2016-04-13

MSF Jarvis said:
Keeping it short and simple, this is a source compiled version of TWRP 3.0.2-0 for the HOT-2. I have based it on @Nonta72's device tree with Infinix hardware configs. If this works for you, please report as such so I can get it official.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hey,
Thank you for your courageous work.
Unfortunately the first build didn't seem to work on my device.
If fails to boot to recovery, then reboots straight to OS.
Please note that:
- You need cm-13 branch to compile the newer TWRP (like TWRP 3.0.x)
- If you're compiling a recovery without kernel source code, you need to use the prebuilt kernel from recovery.img, not sure if the kernel from boot.img is the same in recovery.img In my sources, I uploaded the one from boot.img
- Something may be wrong with the source. I will properly check this week-end. I except the device name to be wrong.

Nonta72 said:
Hey,
Thank you for your courageous work.
Unfortunately the first build didn't seem to work on my device.
If fails to boot to recovery, then reboots straight to OS.
Please note that:
- You need cm-13 branch to compile the newer TWRP (like TWRP 3.0.x)
- If you're compiling a recovery without kernel source code, you need to use the prebuilt kernel from recovery.img, not sure if the kernel from boot.img is the same in recovery.img In my sources, I uploaded the one from boot.img
- Something may be wrong with the source. I will properly check this week-end. I except the device name to be wrong.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
- I upstream-patched the tree to cm-13.0 (Atleast for TWRP)
- The kernel's are the same, only the init.rc changes. I'll have to see to that.
- I found d5110_infinix pointless, since you have asserts for d5110 as well, ROMs will pass the device name assert and flash.

MSF Jarvis said:
- I upstream-patched the tree to cm-13.0 (Atleast for TWRP)
- The kernel's are the same, only the init.rc changes. I'll have to see to that.
- I found d5110_infinix pointless, since you have asserts for d5110 as well, ROMs will pass the device name assert and flash.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If boot.img rcs are different from recovery.img ones, then it won't probably boot. But I think the fstab files are the same.
I will add a new branch with recovery rcs on week-end.

Nonta72 said:
If boot.img rcs are different from recovery.img ones, then it won't probably boot. But I think the fstab files are the same.
I will add a new branch with recovery rcs on week-end.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Recovery ones are usually barebones, because boot.img rc's are quite complex, because they have to fix perms on the entire sysfs, set default IO scheduler, CPU Governor and create mount points. Recovery rc's are about 20 lines in the oldie device I maintain along with the LAVA Pixelv1.
Let's work together to get this booting and I'll also get your name on the device page as maintainer
And I usually keep my word.

MSF Jarvis said:
Recovery ones are usually barebones, because boot.img rc's are quite complex, because they have to fix perms on the entire sysfs, set default IO scheduler, CPU Governor and create mount points. Recovery rc's are about 20 lines in the oldie device I maintain along with the LAVA Pixelv1.
Let's work together to get this booting and I'll also get your name on the device page as maintainer
And I usually keep my word.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sure
Let's make it work! :highfive:

Nonta72 said:
Sure
Let's make it work! :highfive:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
New build : http://msfjarvis.me/seedmtk/HOT-2/TWRP/
Not sure this one will boot either, but let's try

MSF Jarvis said:
New build : http://msfjarvis.me/seedmtk/HOT-2/TWRP/
Not sure this one will boot either, but let's try
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The problem persists.
We have a WhatsApp group, you may want to join us by sending over your number (in PM if you wish). That will make exchange faster.

Nonta72 said:
Sure
Let's make it work! :highfive:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
MSF Jarvis said:
New build : http://msfjarvis.me/seedmtk/HOT-2/TWRP/
Not sure this one will boot either, but let's try
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In 15 minutes, there will be twrp-3.0.2-2 available there. If you're interested to see what I did to it, check the commits
This one has logcat enabled as well, so you may wanna help me that way. I don't do WhatsApp, so you may want to hop on to #team-redux on http://webchat.freenode.net rather.

Nonta72 said:
Sure
Let's make it work! :highfive:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Made a typo in BoardConfig, now it's okay. Building now :fingers-crossed:

MSF Jarvis said:
Made a typo in BoardConfig, now it's okay. Building now :fingers-crossed:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nonta72 said:
The problem persists.
We have a WhatsApp group, you may want to join us by sending over your number (in PM if you wish). That will make exchange faster.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Another test build is up : 3.0.2-2

MSF Jarvis said:
Another test build is up : 3.0.2-2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You should probably compare x510 files with sprout8/4 files; because it still doesn't boot ...

Nonta72 said:
You should probably compare x510 files with sprout8/4 files; because it still doesn't boot ...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe I should, but where's the similarity?

MSF Jarvis said:
Maybe I should, but where's the similarity?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I never compared them ...
Since you already compiled TWRP for sprout, I thought it would be easier to compare with x510. :laugh:
Anyways, I did many unsuccessful attempts to port sprout4/8 roms to x510 without success. Both devices are slightly differents.

Nonta72 said:
I never compared them ...
Since you already compiled TWRP for sprout, I thought it would be easier to compare with x510. :laugh:
Anyways, I did many unsuccessful attempts to port sprout4/8 roms to x510 without success. Both devices are slightly differents.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
sprout(4|8) are MT6582 devices, just like the LAVA Pixelv1. I don't know how the x510 ended up with a MT6580 processor

Ah, sadly didn't work for me, it doesn't boot to recovery mode, i already tried "reboot recovery" and "adb reboot recovery" method but didn"t work.. But if i flash twrp 2.8.7.0 it works...
Infinix Hot 2 (16+2 GB version)

RendyAK said:
Ah, sadly didn't work for me, it doesn't boot to recovery mode, i already tried "reboot recovery" and "adb reboot recovery" method but didn"t work.. But if i flash twrp 2.8.7.0 it works...
Infinix Hot 2 (16+2 GB version)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know it isn't booting. Just on a note, your 2.8.7.0 boots? Coz it's just an emulator build, designed to run on the Android Emulator, not an actual device ??

MSF Jarvis said:
sprout(4|8) are MT6582 devices, just like the LAVA Pixelv1. I don't know how the x510 ended up with a MT6580 processor
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because MT6580 is a recent version of the MT6582. Forget the "2" that became "0" at the end. The MT6580 is even faster than the MT6582 and can match some MT6592 (with 1GB RAM). I saw a 33,000+ antutu on a MT6580 (with 2GB RAM) and overclocked (yes! overclocked, idk how but they said so).
MSF Jarvis said:
I know it isn't booting. Just on a note, your 2.8.7.0 boots? Coz it's just an emulator build, designed to run on the Android Emulator, not an actual device ??
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sir, you're talking about the messed up ramdisk. In fact, there are many builds, the one you have seen have many bugs probably because of the messed up rcs.
The only recovery that works good for me is the one made by Ovatek. I made few commits to my github including the fstab file changes you suggested...

Went here http://forum.xda-developers.com/cro...al-android-development/recovery-twrp-t3353364 and have noticed your work on the Lava Pixel. I compared ramdisk of TWRP 3.0.2 for that device and found out that it's just the same as sprout4 and 8!
In fact, the seedmtk is just a "name"; the files are very identical to 1st gen Android One. For example: Both sprout4/8 and Pixel V1 use fstab.sprout in ramdisks.
The Infinix Hot 2 is a whole different story! It doesn't seem to even have a codename LOL In its ramdisk, you find fstab.mt6580 not fstab.sprout (or something alike).
One more thing, if you unpack boot.img of Hot 2 using Carliv Image Kitchen, you get 9 files + ramdisk folder. But if you unpack Pixel V1's boot.img with the same tool, you get 6 files + ramdisk folder.
You can find ALL 2nd Gen Android One devices here on Wikipedia

Nonta72 said:
Went here http://forum.xda-developers.com/cro...al-android-development/recovery-twrp-t3353364 and have noticed your work on the Lava Pixel. I compared ramdisk of TWRP 3.0.2 for that device and found out that it's just the same as sprout4 and 8!
In fact, the seedmtk is just a "name"; the files are very identical to 1st gen Android One. For example: Both sprout4/8 and Pixel V1 use fstab.sprout in ramdisks.
The Infinix Hot 2 is a whole different story! It doesn't seem to even have a codename LOL In its ramdisk, you find fstab.mt6580 not fstab.sprout (or something alike).
One more thing, if you unpack boot.img of Hot 2 using Carliv Image Kitchen, you get 9 files + ramdisk folder. But if you unpack Pixel V1's boot.img with the same tool, you get 6 files + ramdisk folder.
You can find ALL 2nd Gen Android One devices here on Wikipedia
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually speaking, the OEM for the MT6582 device went with naming the device 'sprout', which I vehemently oppose, to avoid confusion. The stock boot.img's ramdisk also contains files according to the 'sprout' nomenclature. I took the sprout4 device tree, updated all *.rc's from the stock marshamallow boot.img and added in a bunch of TWRP flags.
One important thing you most probably already know, Infinix Hot 2 uses a standard MTK boot.img header, while the LAVA Pixelv1 uses an AOSP format, so it can be unpacked using standard tools, while yours requires Carliv's kitchen.

I tried to build twrp for A605k but..

there is no such kernel,device tree,vendor for my device.
I could build device tree via twrpbuilder tree generator,
but kernel cannot be found in opensource release center.
why am i need A605k? not F or FN or else?
that's because when i used A605FN recovery it has so many errors... and it makes me build twrp for A605K.
not for other models..
but.. i failed,
device tree built via twrpbuilder tree generator doesn't have omni.dependencies file
so, what do you guys think how can i fix those annoying things?
I know, this is not a question area, but i want to make Discussion with you guys to get a idea

Well if your trying to build a device tree and kernel source and vendor start with downloading android source in linux there are many great guides for this then download the sources for the A600F/FN or any other current model of the A600 then there will be a file in the folder for whichever source you downloaded that will allow you to pull resources from your phone like kernel recovery device vendor files ect.. use that and then import it to the same folder than try to build TWRP and test it to see if you get a working build if not then go back and try again their are many sources for learning how to compile twrp for devices that dont have it read those and try again.
Sent from my [device_name] using XDA-Developers Legacy app

tmvkrpxl0 said:
there is no such kernel,device tree,vendor for my device.
I could build device tree via twrpbuilder tree generator,
but kernel cannot be found in opensource release center.
why am i need A605k? not F or FN or else?
that's because when i used A605FN recovery it has so many errors... and it makes me build twrp for A605K.
not for other models..
but.. i failed,
device tree built via twrpbuilder tree generator doesn't have omni.dependencies file
so, what do you guys think how can i fix those annoying things?
I know, this is not a question area, but i want to make Discussion with you guys to get a idea
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I did find the kernel and source here: http://opensource.samsung.com/recep...menu_item=mobile&classification1=mobile_phone
(page 44 for SM-A605FN - A605FNXXU1ARD7)
I would like to build it myself, but my android development knowledge is limited (i do have a solid linux knowledge though).
Is this guide obsolete (https://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1943625)?
If yes, anyone knows where can i find an up-to-date one?
If not, any idea where BoardConfig.mk can be found?

Where can we find a guide on how to build a twrp? I would really like to learn how to do it