Related
hy all
this is an project starter for android 3.4 kernel development for all msm7x30 mogami devices
sources are hosted on
https://github.com/freexperia/android_kernel_semc_msm7x30
br
J
Project Status
- we got initial branch after diffing lost of branches
M7630AABBQMLZA203029A
https://www.codeaurora.org/gitweb/q...it;h=4b2b84c6a0b6d29864e982a7aecc223acfd2eaa1
forked to our git and with mogami patches aplied
https://github.com/freexperia/android_kernel_semc_msm7x30/tree/M7630AABBQMLZA203029A
latest CAF tag for 7630 not usefull for now
https://www.codeaurora.org/xwiki/bin/QAEP/release
"November 16, 2012 M7630AABBQMLZA40701070 - msm7630 - M7630AABBQMLZA40701070.xml - 04.01.02" android 4.1
ETA
depending on problems and developers that will join
from 6 months to NEVER
This is a bold task. Perhaps you could look at the developments of irii-soft (and some others), they have replaced some crap Sony-specific code with generic wrappers. Main obstacle if I remember is memory maps now, there was an issue with partition maps but ATAG can be easily over-ridden via kernel command-line.
Getting it to boot should be trivial, sound and video will be difficult, and RIL may be never working due to lack of sources. Regardless, all the best. When I have more time I plan to help irii with his work on a "generic" 2.x kernel newer than what we have (because 3.x seems outrageous at this point).
Is there a wiki, a forum or something like that lists all the non-standard things that have already been found ? (some base of work to do)
Boudin said:
Is there a wiki, a forum or something like that lists all the non-standard things that have already been found ? (some base of work to do)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Easy to do yourself - download official SEMC kernel source and diff it with the same version of the linux baseline kernel. So to port to newer kernel you can isolate or "extract" the specific code that has been added and changed, and merge or "inject" that into a newer kernel. Easier said than done though, there are massive changes even in linux kernel revisions (0.0.x.0) - let alone alone new majors and minors (x.x.0.0).
There wouldn't be a wiki or anything of this research, because documenting it all would take an unrealistic amount of labor. Considering there are only a small handful of developers capable of it, there's no point. Besides, that's what GitHub and commit logs are for.
To FXP team,
I don't know if you know or not or even got this far in the development stage but I just wanted to point out a couple of things which may or may not help you...
So with the 3.4 kernel brings newer WiFi drivers which will give a better connection signal on wpa2 security but you might find that devices won't be able to connect to open security networks and WiFi hotspot will probably be broken. I'm posting this as on my gnex using custom kernel (FrancoFransico) he incorporated the 3.4 WiFi drivers a few times and broken hotspot and not being able to use open security WiFi networks were repeatedly reported problems.
I think it may be something hardware specific which allows these features to work on the 3.4 WiFi drivers specific to the nexus 4? You may have more luck trying the 3.0.xx WiFi drivers and getting those to work fully.
Best of luck to you guys!
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus
I'm pretty sure wifi is way down on the priority list, not to be rude but really - who cares about that now. Priority list would be like this:
(1) Get it to boot
(2) Fix primary/critical hardware-specific code for msm7k and qcom platform (display, audio)
(3) Fix RIL
(4) Fix secondary hardware (sensors, bluetooth, wifi)
One step at a time. Getting wifi will probably be trivial because bcm sources are part of the mainline kernel.
With that said, I'm unsubscribing from this thread now. There is massive work to be done and I can see this thread is just going to be filled with posts that have nothing to do with actual development.
All non-dev related posts, and especially "Thank You" posts, will be deleted without further notice. If I have to delete 5 pages of useless posts again, this thread will be locked.
Thank you!
We have tried for a long time already (as you may already know).
https://github.com/adridu59/semc-msm-3.4/commits/master
https://github.com/adridu59/semc-msm-2.6.35
https://github.com/adridu59/android-msm-2.6.35
https://github.com/ExPeacer/CAF_android-msm-3.0/commits/master
https://github.com/ExPeacer/CAF_android-msm-2.6.32
Have fun with it anyways.
adridu59 said:
We have tried for a long time already (as you may already know).
https://github.com/adridu59/semc-msm-3.4/commits/master
https://github.com/adridu59/semc-msm-2.6.35
https://github.com/adridu59/android-msm-2.6.35
https://github.com/ExPeacer/CAF_android-msm-3.0/commits/master
https://github.com/ExPeacer/CAF_android-msm-2.6.32
Have fun with it anyways.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Whats the progress so far on this? Bootable already?
CosmicDan said:
Easy to do yourself - download official SEMC kernel source and diff it with the same version of the linux baseline kernel. So to port to newer kernel you can isolate or "extract" the specific code that has been added and changed, and merge or "inject" that into a newer kernel. Easier said than done though, there are massive changes even in linux kernel revisions (0.0.x.0) - let alone alone new majors and minors (x.x.0.0).
There wouldn't be a wiki or anything of this research, because documenting it all would take an unrealistic amount of labor. Considering there are only a small handful of developers capable of it, there's no point. Besides, that's what GitHub and commit logs are for.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was asked by some user of this forum to give some kernel porting guidelines in this thread, so let me introduce myself first. I'm the developer of 3.0.x kernel for Samsung Galaxy Spica (also several other projects for Spica and Galaxy Apollo/Galaxy 3) and currently also Linux kernel developer at Samsung Poland R&D Center. Porting the kernel for Spica was a difficult task, because of poor quality of original kernel code, which required rewriting from scratch most of it, but it was very educational.
It's not easy to give advice, but I'd say that taking all the differences from clean kernel and applying all of that on top of newer version is what should be avoided. Of course those differences should be collected to see what was changed by the manufacturer, but this should be only used for further analysis, not as a ready code.
Another thing, rather than using the mainline Linux kernel to compare your phone sources with, it should be better to use Android kernel from Google's kernel/common tree (see https://www.codeaurora.org/gitweb/quic/la/?p=kernel/common.git;a=summary for older version archive) bumped to the same minor version using minor patches (found on kernel.org) or, possibly even better way, by pulling appropriate version tag from kernel.org git on top of proper branch of Android kernel tree. This will elminate Google's changes (that would be already available in your new base - android-3.4 branch of kernel/common) from the diff.
For getting the diff, I would personally also use Git. If you create a branch in your working tree which contains Android kernel in the version corresponding to your device kernel (using the way I described in previous paragraph), then copying your device kernel sources onto your working tree (remember to make distclean both trees to remove any compiled/generated files) will allow you to see the differences using git status and git diff. (See http://gitimmersion.com/ if you want to learn more about Git.)
Now it's important to split the changes into logically separate parts, for example core changes in arch/arm/mach-whatever_suitable_for_your_device, adding of particular drivers in drivers/, sound/ and include/, modifications to core kernel code in any other directories. It's essential to check whether all the changes are really required or not and why, because minimalizing the set of changes required to be replayed on top of your new base kernel sources will simplify your work.
After collecting all the changes, it's the time to apply them on top of your new kernel sources. All the changes should be applied one by one, checking how much the component that is being touched has changed since your old kernel and adjusting the changes properly. After applying each change, it should be verified that the kernel at least compiles, although it would be even better if you could get the kernel without any (or almost any) modification to boot to some state, e.g. showing something on the console (any chance to get access to serial console on your device?), and then check if it still boots after applying each next change.
Some links that might be useful:
- Linux cross reference, for comfortable reading of kernel code - http://lxr.linux.no/+trees
- Linux Device Drivers, a book about kernel programming - http://lwn.net/Kernel/LDD3/
- Git Immersion, a great Git tutorial - http://gitimmersion.com/
- Android kernel/common repository with full archive - https://www.codeaurora.org/gitweb/quic/la/?p=kernel/common.git;a=summary
- Linux stable repository, with all version tags - http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git;a=summary
Hopefully what I wrote will be helpful in your project. Good luck and best regards.
Hey tom3q,
thanks a lot for leaving some useful statements here!
tom3q said:
Another thing, rather than using the mainline Linux kernel to compare your phone sources with, it should be better to use Android kernel from Google's kernel/common tree (see https://www.codeaurora.org/gitweb/quic/la/?p=kernel/common.git;a=summary for older version archive) bumped to the same minor version using minor patches (found on kernel.org) or, possibly even better way, by pulling appropriate version tag from kernel.org git on top of proper branch of Android kernel tree.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I digged for some base kernel for a while.
Found a chromium msm kernel 2.6.32.9 at codeaurora (i know this is not Android).
Anyway, the diff against stock was ~30MB... quite too much.
Like i assumed many basic things are missing as well, so too much to start from.
I guess, i'll step through the other projects... might try 2.6.32-rc8 from the msm tree... just for fun of course :angel:
tom3q said:
After applying each change, it should be verified that the kernel at least compiles, although it would be even better if you could get the kernel without any (or almost any) modification to boot to some state, e.g. showing something on the console (any chance to get access to serial console on your device?), and then check if it still boots after applying each next change.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nice point... i like these hardware hacks and asked about testpoints for UART3 on the Pro mainboard a few days ago.
It's mentioned and so far i got it, initialized in stock kernel as well. Unfortunately no-one seems to know anything about these testpoints.
Anyway i don't want to spam this thread, so thanks for your attention
Regards,
scholbert
hy
scuse my ignorance
but
HOW do you compile an kernel ?
and maybe someone can explain what is the difference between bring-up and port
scholbert said:
Hey tom3q,
thanks a lot for leaving some useful statements here!
I digged for some base kernel for a while.
Found a chromium msm kernel 2.6.32.9 at codeaurora (i know this is not Android).
Anyway, the diff against stock was ~30MB... quite too much.
Like i assumed many basic things are missing as well, so too much to start from.
I guess, i'll step through the other projects... might try 2.6.32-rc8 from the msm tree... just for fun of course :angel:
Nice point... i like these hardware hacks and asked about testpoints for UART3 on the Pro mainboard a few days ago.
It's mentioned and so far i got it, initialized in stock kernel as well. Unfortunately no-one seems to know anything about these testpoints.
Anyway i don't want to spam this thread, so thanks for your attention
Regards,
scholbert
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
FXP said:
hy
scuse my ignorance
but
HOW do you compile an kernel ?
and maybe someone can explain what is the difference between bring-up and port
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would say that porting is moving and correcting sources from 2.6.32 kernel in our case into 3.x. And bring up is writing particular drivers from scratch?
Sent from my Nexus 7
voyteckst said:
I would say that porting is moving and correcting sources from 2.6.32 kernel in our case into 3.x. And bring up is writing particular drivers from scratch?
Sent from my Nexus 7
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ok
nice explanation
look on first page
diff is 5mb on proper tag
pushed on github
nice to see so many developers trying to help
FXP said:
diff is 5mb on proper tag
pushed on github
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry to throw my 3 cents again, but seeing the repository on github, I'd recommend you to use some time to go through Git Immersion. Even if it takes some time, it will simplify your further work, as Git used properly can really make many things easier.
Otherwise, the diff itself looks mostly fine as a starting point, although some of the differences can be probably eliminated.
tom3q said:
Sorry to throw my 3 cents again, but seeing the repository on github, I'd recommend you to use some time to go through Git Immersion. Even if it takes some time, it will simplify your further work, as Git used properly can really make many things easier.
Otherwise, the diff itself looks mostly fine as a starting point, although some of the differences can be probably eliminated.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
sony added too many changes to be usefull
since there are several api changes on 32->3.x diff is no good
we have to start from clean board-7x30 and populate devices porting drivers 1 by 1
we have to try an device bringup based on sony changes
I have decided to rework the thread to ovoid any confusion as the intent of posting this thread was to ask questions about compiling custom Roms from AOSP source that someone like myself who gained their development experience on other devices that building from pure AOSP code was not an option and are not as familiar working with AOSP. In the past my own experience comes from using and modifying for example the Cyanogenmod source so after attempting to now base my Rom on AOSP this time around with Lollipop have run into a few unfamiliar differences. As each question or topic is addressed I will update the Op. The hope is not only will I find solutions or answers to my own questions but that others in the same position will also be able to find use of the discussions posted in this thread.
Compiling the AOSP source into a format that can be safely flashed using a custom recovery. This was a 3 part question the first was just simply how to compile AOSP in a format other then .img files that can be flashed using a custom recovery without the need of flashing through fastboot or needing to use the adb sideload option.
1, Compiling AOSP into the for of an update.zip.
This was answered in short by know.patience by suggesting to use the “make otapackage” command in place of "make" to start the build. Was also made aware that a few modifications would need to be made to avoid producing an update package that does not use the new block format but instead the old style zips we are most used to seeing.
2, Now can create an update.zip using the “make otapackage” command ran into an issue that by flashing the update.zip produced would in the process replace the custom recovery used to flash with the Nexus Stock recovery. This was answered by Lethargy who suggested and provided a Link for the following commit.
For getting rid of the AOSP recovery:
https://github.com/Lethargy/android_build/commit/48521e167c642db76c9d4f52b1c63f9abc7f707f
https://github.com/Lethargy/android_build/commit/1d9224bd45ef2b4f5601a157de2bfe3bb1c95558
3, Now can create an update.zip using the “make otapackage” and after applying the above commit are now able to flash the update.zip without replacing the recovery Lethargy also provided links for the following commits.
To get rid of the block-based zip format:
https://github.com/Lethargy/android_build/commit/4d458300d935a3a9d893a590286cb578dcf54db2
You'll also want to make sure you have this commit so it doesn't flash awfully slow in recovery (8~ minutes, but only around 1-2 minutes with this commit):
https://github.com/Lethargy/android_system_extras/commit/52f8d5fc3edfacd112827d0a41516c1dc5f4a468
This one isn't required but you may as well:
https://github.com/Lethargy/android_build/commit/242be9ae4f05e3cb1d39d635cac7147ff904700c
Compiling using the AOSP Master branch vs release branches. In following the directions provided on the Google development site are given the command for downloading the source code using the Master branch. Using the Master branch as apposed to a release branch such as android-5.0.2_r1 or lower have found that the source compiles just fine but have run into one issue and just a general question that a little explanation would be helpful for general understanding of the AOSP Master branch.
The issue is that after flashing a Rom compiled using the Master branch everything in the Rom works as expected other than the radio. I have so far using the same exact vendor blobs as compiling a release branch have not had a signal and baseband version is listed under about phone as unknown.
The general question is that the android version listed compiling a Rom using the Master branch is version 5.0.50.50.50.50. In general I have yet to understand what this version number represents and very little to no information available via the Google Box.
Between the both I now wounder if the Master branch is intended for actual use or if so what changes are required so the baseband version is recognized and radio / Ril will work?
Quick Answer:
Google first commits new code into master and then is later tagged with an update for realease so in generall many things can be broken and the master branch is and not intended to be stable so if building from master expect that things will be broke or buggy.
Compiling Rom and Kernel together. For those of us again used to compiling using say the CM code are now used to compiling the Kernel along with the rest of the code. I know it is easy to just compile the Kernel and include in the device tree but for those of us who would still like the Kernel compiles with the rest of the code there is no information available on the Google Developers site for doing so and there seems to be a few differences as have tried just using the lines used in the CM Hammerhead device repository. I have come across these commits from Cl3Kener that should help. Hate posting other developers code but is on Github so is there for the public at large. So far have only tested as is so will update if finding not all changes are necessary or can be modified.
Inline Kernel Building
https://github.com/OptiPop/device_lge_hammerhead/commit/7de8fd95b6df16cb6311161d5048874d69cf1cb1
https://github.com/OptiPop/device_lge_hammerhead/commit/87768896f4eb8fcd989ce3b8492ca65305513851
https://github.com/OptiPop/device_lge_hammerhead/commit/5460eb3aa76ea5d813f64a3b3bab6ace1be6de68
Adding Pre-Built APK's
Seems Sprint users need a few apk's for updating prl and what not that are included into the Stock release but are not part of the AOSP code. For some reason through vendor or even device have tried adding these apk's into the build. First try I created a sprint vendor section and received a few errors untill learning would need to add sprint into a vendor white list found in build. Will post link to file later. After found the extra "Services.jar" I found in the stock image not found in the aosp compiled Rom did copy into the build but the apk's had not. Looking in the other vendor blobs noticed lge adds "qcrilmsgtunnel.apk" so followed the example and even tried just adding the other spk's into lge expanding the list used for adding in "qcrilmsgtunnel.apk" but still no luck. Also have tried adding through the device files for Hammerhead just to get them into the Rom for testing and still no luck. If this was CM or any other Rom not using pure aosp this would have been a 5 minut project so need to do some aditional homework.
Again think this thread could be a good resource for developers who are new to building their Roms around AOSP so wanted to include everything I run into during the process of moving away from using a heavily modified CM based code as the base of my Rom to using AOSP in its place so developers who are or in the same process or for those in the future can use as a resource to quickly adjusting. I have been building CM based Roms like Starship for years and after hours of working on other aspects to suddenly be stumped by these small differences between platforms can be very frustrating.
to the OP:
answer to your first question comes in two parts.
a) use 'make -j# otapackage' will generate a zip that is flashable in custom recovery.
b) if you plan on adding other files after the zip is made, you will need this info here:
https://github.com/android/platform_build/commit/26e6619c37e294fe2ee63aaa759e0ac861775ce8
There are some modifications needed to generate the OG zip files instead of the new "block" format.
Google hasn't released the 5.0.1 image for the N5 but that doesn't mean you can't build it and install it yourself. I'm running it and it seems okay to me so far although I'm hardly an expert.
simms22 said:
op.. this section is only for developers, to get work done. if you have questions, they belong in the q&a section. you arent new, you should know this. again, this section is only for developers, mot for the normal xda folk to post questions. you have a q&a section just for asking questions. please, ask a mod to move your thread there.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am building a customized AOSP Rom I am interested in sharing so was looking for help or direction in creating an update zip that can be flashed in a custom recovery like TWRP. I am not used to compiling AOSP and with the help of know.patience in the first reply am now able to compile an update.zip I can flash in TWRP but in doing so it also replaces TWRP with the Stock recovery. I have still been using the .img files to flash personally but am still trying to figure out how to solve the recovery replacement issue. I still have other features I am adding and testing before I would like to post my work but before I get to that point I still need to figure out my recovery replacement issue. Maybe using the words personal use may have been confusing but at the moment until ready I have only been using my work personally but would like to at some point post and share. I also have work that is not AOSP based I am sharing in the Android Development section but I have been building CM and other source based Roms and sharing for years. This is the first device I have been able to build AOSP and still have a few things to figure out before sharing any of my AOSP based work. I am otherwise not sure why you think these are questions for general Q&A.
I started this thread in Android Development as there was only about 4 posts in this section and I see many AOSP based Roms in Android Development who's developers obviously know the answers to my questions so tried to get away posting there in hope one of these developers could help or like in the first response point me in the direction of a commit before the thread was moved by a mod into this section. Do you think someone in the general Q&A section is better equipped to help answer questions about compiling an AOSP based Rom in the form of an update.zip that can be flashed in TWRP without also replacing TWRP with the Stock recovery?? Would also be nice knowing what changes in the code need to be made in compiling an old style update.zip that does not use the new block format. This would be a bonus but overall not %100 needed as instead of moving files around after the code has been compiled have added init.d support and first have all the files I want moved into a staging directory and then form an init,d bash script to move the files during first boot and remove those that are not needed like this example I used in my CM based version of the Rom I am trying to update for AOSP for 5.0.
https://github.com/Starship-Android/android_device_starship-common/blob/cm-11.0/app-update
https://github.com/Starship-Android/android_device_starship-common/blob/cm-11.0/cleanup
I must seriously be underestimating the knowledge and in general the types of questions being asked and answered in the general Q&A section.
Honestly if not for the amount of times thanked I would think this comment was not so much about helping or community but more about someone trying to puff themselves up by trying to appear important by making decisions about what questions are worthy of being asked but judging by the number of times they have been helpful I am thinking its either a case of not reading or understanding the question being asked or my own inability to express my questions in the proper manor. Either way its definitely not about taking up resources in a section with less than 10 total posts. The frustrating part as a community as I like to believe we are all in is that why I worked on other parts in updating my Rom had expected that at least more than one developer out of all the AOSP based Roms posted in the development section would have helped me with this one part. Its not like I am asking how to be a developer just a resource to help with two simple things I am sure I could have figured out and will most likely still figure out without any help. Overall my thoughts behind posting this question was that why I am working to figure out something a bit more time consuming at least more than one person would be helpful enough to copy and past a commit.
XDA is weird in that with other devices all the developers would join a team and start a shared group of repository’s for one another to use in trying to make the best possible experience and options for everyone. For example in the op I posted an example of hours of work I did showing what libraries are needed by one another just so others could use it also in trying to port as much as possible for in that case the Galaxy Mini. Then with other devices like seems to be the case with the N5 its all about competition and what I am starting to call the smartest person in the room syndrome. Its just a shame there are only 5 maybe 6 threads posted in this section and I think that says allot about the community in general. So many good things could come about if we just tried to be helpful and pull as much knowledge together as we could. Anyhow think its time for ending this rant.
chairshot215 said:
compiling an AOSP based Rom in the form of an update.zip that can be flashed in TWRP without also replacing TWRP with the Stock recovery?? Would also be nice knowing what changes in the code need to be made in compiling an old style update.zip that does not use the new block format.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
To get rid of the block-based zip format: https://github.com/Lethargy/android_build/commit/4d458300d935a3a9d893a590286cb578dcf54db2
You'll also want to make sure you have this commit so it doesn't flash awfully slow in recovery (8~ minutes, but only around 1-2 minutes with this commit): https://github.com/Lethargy/android_system_extras/commit/52f8d5fc3edfacd112827d0a41516c1dc5f4a468
This one isn't required but you may as well: https://github.com/Lethargy/android_build/commit/242be9ae4f05e3cb1d39d635cac7147ff904700c
For getting rid of the AOSP recovery: https://github.com/Lethargy/android_build/commit/48521e167c642db76c9d4f52b1c63f9abc7f707f then https://github.com/Lethargy/android_build/commit/1d9224bd45ef2b4f5601a157de2bfe3bb1c95558
Lethargy said:
To get rid of the block-based zip format: https://github.com/Lethargy/android_build/commit/4d458300d935a3a9d893a590286cb578dcf54db2
You'll also want to make sure you have this commit so it doesn't flash awfully slow in recovery (8~ minutes, but only around 1-2 minutes with this commit): https://github.com/Lethargy/android_system_extras/commit/52f8d5fc3edfacd112827d0a41516c1dc5f4a468
This one isn't required but you may as well: https://github.com/Lethargy/android_build/commit/242be9ae4f05e3cb1d39d635cac7147ff904700c
For getting rid of the AOSP recovery: https://github.com/Lethargy/android_build/commit/48521e167c642db76c9d4f52b1c63f9abc7f707f then https://github.com/Lethargy/android_build/commit/1d9224bd45ef2b4f5601a157de2bfe3bb1c95558
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you this is well beyond what I was looking for and don’t worry I make it a point not to send out PM's with questions that can be helpful for others as well. Otherwise would have blown up the AOSP Rom posters in development but thanks for the information.
chairshot215 said:
.. and don’t worry I make it a point not to send out PM's with questions that can be helpful for others as well..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you mean "I'll probably ignore you if you try asking for support over PM.", that's part of my forum signature.
If you need anything else feel free to @mention me in a thread, though.
I reworked the Op to avoid confusion as Mods have been moving the thread around into different sections. I personalty believe these questions are more geared towered development than general Q&A but at least at the moment I appear to be wrong about that. Never know though as in the past one day one of the mods may decide to move the thread back into its intended location but until then I guess these topics will be of better use to general users than developers.
chairshot215 said:
I reworked the Op to avoid confusion as Mods have been moving the thread around into different sections. I personalty believe these questions are more geared towered development than general Q&A but at least at the moment I appear to be wrong about that. Never know though as in the past one day one of the mods may decide to move the thread back into its intended location but until then I guess these topics will be of better use to general users than developers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You should include the other commit (https://github.com/Lethargy/android_build/commit/1d9224bd45ef2b4f5601a157de2bfe3bb1c95558) which fixes building since the first one results in "IndentationError: unexpected indent".
Lethargy said:
You should include the other commit (https://github.com/Lethargy/android_build/commit/1d9224bd45ef2b4f5601a157de2bfe3bb1c95558) which fixes building since the first one results in "IndentationError: unexpected indent".
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the heads up, when testing these I also cherry picked a few other things that looked related. Have to double check but may have forked the repository’s from you so would receive credit if anyone decided to look over my repository’s. Well overall my personal Github has been pretty bare as in the past most work was done on more obscure Virgin Mobile devices with only a few developers so we would pretty much create an organization for all the developers to use.
https://github.com/MTDEV-CM7
https://github.com/MTDEV-CM10
https://github.com/vmobi-triumph
https://github.com/MTDEV-KERNEL
https://github.com/MTDEV-MIUIv4
https://github.com/MTCM9
https://github.com/MTCM10
https://github.com/HTCCM9
https://github.com/HTCCM10
https://github.com/HTCStarShip
https://github.com/HTCUbuntu
https://github.com/vmobi-shooter
https://github.com/vmobi-gogh
These days have been keeping everything under Starship-Android.
https://github.com/Starship-Android
Have 2 other members listed who I had worked with in the past but has otherwise been a solo organization with one of the other members who decided on going with the Moto X and Verizon over the N5 and showed little interest in his 2012 version of the N7 as it was intended for being a Nexus only device line up and the second being my Kernel Guru from a few devices back who mainly joined to help me out with a few things but ultimately what I am getting around to is this is the first time working %100 solo. Have to say without having anyone to bounce off ideas and share findings with things definitely move much slower and take a bit of getting used to. Is also the reason for starting threads like this. Most of this stuff looking in the developer section appeared to be pretty common knowledge but having never worked from pure AOSP before was slowing down other development for about a week just to figure out what seemed like half the community had already known and with what probably took at the most 5 or 10 minutes of copying and pasting commits probably saved me a weekend of sifting through github and testing. I hope by creating a thread like this will be able to do the same for others.
Hi guys,
Anyone manage to fix RIL problems with master branch?
I also build AOSP roms so for sure i will hangout here
Sent from my AOSP on HammerHead using XDA Free mobile app
malcho said:
Hi guys,
Anyone manage to fix RIL problems with master branch?
I also build AOSP roms so for sure i will hangout here
Sent from my AOSP on HammerHead using XDA Free mobile app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Never tried.
ODEXED
i am successfully build cm12 with fully odexed. now i like to odex some prebuilt apk also but LOCAL_DEX_PREOPT=true not odexing prebuilt apk. can somebody help me? already DEX_PREOPT=true working fine.
soorajj said:
i am successfully build cm12 with fully odexed. now i like to odex some prebuilt apk also but LOCAL_DEX_PREOPT=true not odexing prebuilt apk. can somebody help me? already DEX_PREOPT=true working fine.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why do you need to odex a prebuilt apk?
Not sure if what you want is even possible.
But if odexing your prebuilt apk is necessary then why not odex it then include the .odex with the prebuilt?
Lethargy said:
Why do you need to odex a prebuilt apk?
Not sure if what you want is even possible.
But if odexing your prebuilt apk is necessary then why not odex it then include the .odex with the prebuilt?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
suppose i want to odex gapps. how to?
malcho said:
Hi guys,
Anyone manage to fix RIL problems with master branch?
I also build AOSP roms so for sure i will hangout here
Sent from my AOSP on HammerHead using XDA Free mobile app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nothing so far, I downloaded the master and 5.0.2_r1 branches and have loaded both in meld for looking over differences but have not yet identified from the dif between the 2 branches that is responsible for ril working in release branch but not master. Still have allot to look over though still. Still have not found a decent explanation of the master branch to know if its recommended to build from but still just for Knowledge sake am interested in knowing. At first thought maybe apn's but not so sure with baseband also listed as unknown from my Master branch builds.
chairshot215 said:
Nothing so far, I downloaded the master and 5.0.2_r1 branches and have loaded both in meld for looking over differences but have not yet identified from the dif between the 2 branches that is responsible for ril working in release branch but not master. Still have allot to look over though still. Still have not found a decent explanation of the master branch to know if its recommended to build from but still just for Knowledge sake am interested in knowing. At first thought maybe apn's but not so sure with baseband also listed as unknown from my Master branch builds.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As far as i know all the patches goes to master branch then from this branch ,if they are ok,is distributed to lower branches.I also didn't find info why is named as 5.0.50.50.I will try to investigate this ril problem
malcho said:
As far as i know all the patches goes to master branch then from this branch ,if they are ok,is distributed to lower branches.I also didn't find info why is named as 5.0.50.50.I will try to investigate this ril problem
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks will definitely update the Op with any findings. Was very surprised to find the thread again as it has now been moved 4 times by 4 different Mods, some bounce it to general Q&A and then is bounced back here by another. I understand its not comprised of the most advanced development topics but with that said is still way more advanced than the topics being discussed by general users over in the general Q&A section. I had just thought it would be a nice one stop place for learning the basics of AOSP development. With the constant moving and scolding messages being received one would think the threads very existence is up there with crossing the streams and threatens the existence of Android development.
@chairshot215 Thank you for starting this thread. Thank you @Lethargy for all of your insight. I like to do my own perosnal builds every once in a while for my nexus devices. What I have observed over the years is that the Master Branch will sometimes have funky version numbers like you have described. One thing to consider is what @malcho mentioned. If all commits indeed go there first before the respective branches(although this may not entirely be the case), then it is likely that some things may be broken in the master branch from time to time, hence the ril problem. I think with the galaxy nexus I ended up running into issues from time to time with the master branch, and from there learned to build for specific branches/tags. For instance, there are times when items within a specific branch will be ahead of master in some areas and behind it in others, as in this link to platform_build for lollipop release https://github.com/android/platform_build/tree/lollipop-release. So with that, it is probably in our best interests to just use specific branches.
Milly7 said:
@chairshot215 Thank you for starting this thread. Thank you @Lethargy for all of your insight. I like to do my own perosnal builds every once in a while for my nexus devices. What I have observed over the years is that the Master Branch will sometimes have funky version numbers like you have described. One thing to consider is what @malcho mentioned. If all commits indeed go there first before the respective branches(although this may not entirely be the case), then it is likely that some things may be broken in the master branch from time to time, hence the ril problem. I think with the galaxy nexus I ended up running into issues from time to time with the master branch, and from there learned to build for specific branches/tags. For instance, there are times when items within a specific branch will be ahead of master in some areas and behind it in others, as in this link to platform_build for lollipop release https://github.com/android/platform_build/tree/lollipop-release. So with that, it is probably in our best interests to just use specific branches.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the response and have definitely learned its better building from branches with a release tag. Still very curious why and how the branches are structured so thanks for the explanations.
Way totally off topic for the thread but landed a brand new SSD and decided to install everything fresh. After everything was set back up and wanted to start building I ran my usual,
-j'grep 'processor' /proc/cpuinfo | wc -l'
a very old habit before fully understanding what number to use after -j so used grep to figure it out based on Googles recommendation. The command did not work so removed the grep and just made it -j4 but also with 0 success. At first just figued I missed somthing setting everything back up and "make" is just not working but wrong again as running "make" command without -j of any number works just fine.
Also tried this with CM12 as I am doing 2 versions of my Starship Rom. One from AOSP and one using CM. Figured AOSP would be special for Nexus users why also having a version for CM I can make most changes by adding a Starship Device Tree could easily port the Rom to any device running CM supported or not.
https://github.com/Starship-Android/android_device_starship-common/tree/cm-12.0
Also found why compiling CM that -j also results in an error
Invalid lunch combo: cm_hammerhead--j4
No such item in brunch menu. Try 'breakfast'
So far have not found anything using the Google Box so figured may as well ask. If have not figured out by now I have no shame in asking questions. Oddly enough that is for things that are probably relatively simple. Took a better part of a week figuring out how to start CM using the Now Launcher and setting up init.d bash scripts for moving around and replacing libs after learning the Gapps package includes libs that will not work so the solution needed to be that the CM Gapps package libs needed to be replaced with either stock or libs pulled after installing the Now Launcher from the Play Store after flashing Gapps and the Rom staring. Also then what if user updates and wipes the system partition after the new and updated llibs have been moved into place. Anyhow point of story is things like this I will just figure out without bothering anyone but for the cant believe I need to stop what I am working on to figure out something most likely very simple and can be answered with very little time spent I have no shame in just asking. Not that someone else’s time is less important but like I have mentioned before is frustrating just after spending hours or days figuring out something asked in dozens of threads is just frustrating getting caught up or loosing momentum and thought processes over something so simple there are little resources available. Also I assume most devs have the same experience when you have an idea or thought behind resolving an issue that once you stop and change direction it just sometimes never comes back and that short time you had I guess can be called an epiphany is gone once going back. Otherwise thats how I justify asking dumb ars questions.
Good day lads,
Disclaimer:
Code:
I don't know if you noticed a thread in the Q&A section that was closed by Matt. While I respect Matt's decision to close it, I find it a very relevant topic... The future of LineageOS for the P9 Lite. Please note that I do respect meticulous' wishes to charge for his work because I know how time consuming it is I wish to firmly express that I do not condone this mentality when it comes to Linux based operating systems.
I decided to make this thread with my little Dev knowledge in order to attract more devs who's willing to put in work on a stable device tree for free in spirit of community and for all to enjoy.
I do not have the Lineage source code at the moment but I will start downloading soon, I do know that I will need help and I encourage more devs/beginners to lend a hand for the benefit of us all.
Please, to begin, post links to relevant tarballs/links/downloads for development purposes, device tree and kernels, anything you've worked on so perhaps we can all work together.
Cheers
Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk
Hmmm... The fact that building android ROMs is time consuming is not a good enough reason to request money for OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE. Yes, LineageOS and android in general are open source, so that's an infraction.
About the collective effort, that's a good idea, but there are no sources from Huawei right now. You need to wait for the Nougat sources if Huawei really gives a dime about releasing them. From that point, it is easier to develop and get stuff working. Until then, good luck working without sources and experimenting stuff. Not to mention that there's no official TWRP as well, and TWRPs posted here on XDA for our devices have specific requirements to get them flashed on your device.
Asphyxiate666 said:
Hmmm... The fact that building android ROMs is time consuming is not a good enough reason to request money for OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE. Yes, LineageOS and android in general are open source, so that's an infraction.
About the collective effort, that's a good idea, but there are no sources from Huawei right now. You need to wait for the Nougat sources if Huawei really gives a dime about releasing them. From that point, it is easier to develop and get stuff working. Until then, good luck working without sources and experimenting stuff. Not to mention that there's no official TWRP as well, and TWRPs posted here on XDA for our devices have specific requirements to get them flashed on your device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why do you need to come here with negativity? I don't support meticulous but he can do what he wants with the device sources he took the time to build, heck, he doesn't need to release those sources so I don't know what you're talking about, firstly. Secondly, a device tree can be built, Q.E.D we as a community can work on it together, if they release it we'll just have it much easier.
Note also; I've asked for relevant input and help from the community.
Thanks for your time though.
EDIT: P.S Professional Flasher, have you ever built a ROM before? Because that's my target here, finding people who knows how to fix error and put the tree together
Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk
Carlyle_f said:
Why do you need to come here with negativity? I don't support meticulous but he can do what he wants with the device sources he took the time to build, heck, he doesn't need to release those sources so I don't know what you're talking about, firstly. Secondly, a device tree can be built, Q.E.D we as a community can work on it together, if they release it we'll just have it much easier.
Note also; I've asked for relevant input and help from the community.
Thanks for your time though.
EDIT: P.S Professional Flasher, have you ever built a ROM before? Because that's my target here, finding people who knows how to fix error and put the tree together
Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ignore it's just a critic custom rom user....[emoji12]
Hipom said:
Ignore it's just a critic custom rom user....[emoji12]
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My words are razor sharp but honest and realistic.
Sent from my VNS-L21 using Tapatalk
Asphyxiate666 said:
Hmmm... The fact that building android ROMs is time consuming is not a good enough reason to request money for OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE. Yes, LineageOS and android in general are open source, so that's an infraction.
About the collective effort, that's a good idea, but there are no sources from Huawei right now. You need to wait for the Nougat sources if Huawei really gives a dime about releasing them. From that point, it is easier to develop and get stuff working. Until then, good luck working without sources and experimenting stuff. Not to mention that there's no official TWRP as well, and TWRPs posted here on XDA for our devices have specific requirements to get them flashed on your device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Open source does not mean free, period.
pilgrim011 said:
On xda, it does mean free, period. People that think that they should be paid for contributing here are not welcome on XDA.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you are totally right
Just finish already. If you want to discuss all that situation just create some g+ group or telegram for this.
XDA dev thread is not for that king of discussion.
Also it should be in QA SECTION.
You start xda dev thread when you have something made already. Not just with idea.
lsander said:
If you want to discuss all that situation just create some g+ group or telegram for this.
XDA dev thread is not for that king of discussion.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This disussions are undesired here. I know a board where you can discuss that. If you want, feel free to have a look at it. This little Board is very pleased about every enlivenment. Opened a thread over there.
Well, developers do not grow on trees. I guess there are not enough devs here who have the P9 Lite device.
However I like the intention of the thread author. For that reason please try to discuss in a human way.
In the end: I am vers interested in learning how to build custom roms but I can't find a way how to learn it. Does anyone have some good advice?
Updated kernel
Hello everyone, I've recently been working on updating the Honor 5c kernel to 3.10.105 and so far it seems to be working fine on my P9lite, LineageOS 14.1. It's based purely on stock, with one or two commits borrowed from Meticulus' kernel repo, so it compiles without errors.
Since this is a new account, I can't link my repo directly, you can find it on my github profile, Avsky.
I'll be making my own additions to master branch, while stocklike branch will contain only fixes and kernel updates.
If somebody would like to test them, you can get the boot image from releases tab on github. Stock kernel hasn't been tested, mind you, always keep a backup!
Also depending on how much time I have, I might get started on bringing OmniROM to our device (I'm really missing it). I'm just a college student though, so it might never see the light of day, any help is much appreciated.
Avsky0 said:
Hello everyone, I've recently been working on updating the Honor 5c kernel to 3.10.105 and so far it seems to be working fine on my P9lite, LineageOS 14.1. It's based purely on stock, with one or two commits borrowed from Meticulus' kernel repo, so it compiles without errors.
Since this is a new account, I can't link my repo directly, you can find it on my github profile, Avsky.
I'll be making my own additions to master branch, while stocklike branch will contain only fixes and kernel updates.
If somebody would like to test them, you can get the boot image from releases tab on github. Stock kernel hasn't been tested, mind you, always keep a backup!
Also depending on how much time I have, I might get started on bringing OmniROM to our device (I'm really missing it). I'm just a college student though, so it might never see the light of day, any help is much appreciated.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hello, I tried your kernel on AOSPA MM but I couldn't get the proper unpacked zImage. I got only 9.7 MB gzip which contains the 22 MB Image but I couldn't extract it.
Could you provide the zImage?
dady000 said:
Hello, I tried your kernel on AOSPA MM but I couldn't get the proper unpacked zImage. I got only 9.7 MB gzip which contains the 22 MB Image but I couldn't extract it.
Could you provide the zImage?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Strange, I can extract it without problem using abootimg. Anyway, zImage now included on releases page.
Avsky0 said:
Strange, I can extract it without problem using abootimg. Anyway, zImage now included on releases page.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That zImage looks like the same I got from unpack. For some reason it won't boot when I repack it with my ramdisk.
dady000 said:
That zImage looks like the same I got from unpack. For some reason it won't boot when I repack it with my ramdisk.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I repacked and uploaded my image with ramdisk from your latest AOSPA, could you try it? Sizes varied a bit, I've used my abootimg config with SELinux changed to permissive, as that is the case in your image.
EDIT: I'm uploading extracted zImage as well.
Avsky0 said:
I repacked and uploaded my image with ramdisk from your latest AOSPA, could you try it? Sizes varied a bit, I've used my abootimg config with SELinux changed to permissive, as that is the case in your image.
EDIT: I'm uploading extracted zImage as well.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah of course it works :silly:. Looks like my boot-packing skills are pretty low. Good job :fingers-crossed:
dady000 said:
Yeah of course it works :silly:. Looks like my boot-packing skills are pretty low. Good job :fingers-crossed:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Glad to hear it! Your images seem to be using uncompressed zImages, while in stock ROMs they're gzipped, seems like unintentional change somewhere in your build process.
Avsky0 said:
Glad to hear it! Your images seem to be using uncompressed zImages, while in stock ROMs they're gzipped, seems like unintentional change somewhere in your build process.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah you're right. I just checked it and I am copying Image instead of Image.gz. Seems like it's only a 'cosmetic' issue because it runs anyways.
Great news guys, my sources now compile with latest Linaro toolchain. The kernel actually barely needed any fixes, but I'm not releasing anything prebuilt yet, since I have no idea what impact on stability my hacks might have.
Screenshot
ndroid1562 said:
Well, developers do not grow on trees. I guess there are not enough devs here who have the P9 Lite device.
However I like the intention of the thread author. For that reason please try to discuss in a human way.
In the end: I am vers interested in learning how to build custom roms but I can't find a way how to learn it. Does anyone have some good advice?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Perhaps reading through GitHub commits, checking the code and see whether or not you're really interested. If you're using a Linux distribution which I strongly advise, learn bash scripts first - it's easy and self explanatory and from there you will get basics of directories and calling up files.
Goodluck
Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk
Hello, everyone.
I noticed, there are many custom roms, but not that many for the SM-T505. Is it because it's newly released, or are there other reasons?
Yes, this is a new device and many people are probably waiting for the Black Friday/Cyber Monday deals to grab one. I just grabbed one for $150 on Amazon, a steal compared to something like a Fire tablet IMO. This is a low-end tablet, so there won't be as much focus on it as say a flagship phone. But thankfully it's already been unlocked and rooted, so the next step will be to get TWRP on it, and then custom ROM development can start to pick up on it. Don't expect any updates before the end of the year for custom ROMs though, it will likely take time to have TWRP up and running on it, but I am hopeful that we will see good things on this tablet in 2021
Without kernel sources it won't happen. See https://opensource.samsung.com/uploadSearch?searchValue=sm-t505 and https://opensource.samsung.com/uploadSearch?searchValue=sm-t500.
You can request them on that page. I did it a few times but no response so far.
paziusss said:
Without kernel sources it won't happen. See https://opensource.samsung.com/uploadSearch?searchValue=sm-t505 and https://opensource.samsung.com/uploadSearch?searchValue=sm-t500.
You can request them on that page. I did it a few times but no response so far.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Interesting... is it just me or is there no button to start an inquiry?
EDIT: Found it... just posted an Inquiry.
Watching!! I just bought the T500.
jlang11 said:
Watching!! I just bought the T500.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just got an answer from Samsung, but don't get to excited. It was just an automated answer, that they received my inquiry. So stay tuned...
https://opensource.samsung.com/uploadSearch?searchValue=t500 gives you a 514mb file with kernel and vencor files.
Maybe both 505 and 500 are similiar enough to get you started
Sources are available: https://opensource.samsung.com/uploadSearch?searchValue=sm-t500
They include a toolchain in kernel tree, broken KConfigs and a lot of junk. I will try to clean a bit a mess and update a lean kernel tree to github
paziusss said:
Sources are available: https://opensource.samsung.com/uploadSearch?searchValue=sm-t500
They include a toolchain in kernel tree, broken KConfigs and a lot of junk. I will try to clean a bit a mess and update a lean kernel tree to github
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Will you also do a diff against the upstream version so we can see what they changed?
selemine said:
Will you also do a diff against the upstream version so we can see what they changed?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sure, but I'm going to remove the toolchain from the kernel tree since the beginning. It takes About 1GB alone and I don't want to have it on git refs because it will still take a lot of space even if removed.
The rest of changes will be available on github.
paziusss said:
Sure, but I'm going to remove the toolchain from the kernel tree since the beginning. It takes About 1GB alone and I don't want to have it on git refs because it will still take a lot of space even if removed.
The rest of changes will be available on github.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's been a long time, since i took up building custom roms and forgot about it for a while... if the kernel is cleansed from all the BS no one needs, that would be awesome.
There are a lot of small changes to comments and changes of 2 characters in a line. Wonder if they backported stuff there.
Kernel of the SM-T505 was just released...
If this is of any relevance, the download is 'just' 200MB... i wonder why.
The Platform Archive is mostly identical, just a few text files with notes and copyright were missing.
The Kernel Package as well, just small changes to netfilter and
a new defconfig file.
Defconfig for both devices also is more or less the same
gta4lwifi_eur_open_defconfig is missing one line compared to gta4l_eur_open_defconfig
CONFIG_SAMSUNG_FREECESS=y
Guess the difference comes from the toolchain mentioned above.
@paziusss
How far have you come?
Would be great if we had something clean to start a twrp and easier rooting
selemine said:
@paziusss
How far have you come?
Would be great if we had something clean to start a twrp and easier rooting
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry, I have a very bad internet connection (uplink it is ~50-100KiB/s)
I created the repo a month ago: https://github.com/pazos/android_kernel_samsung_gta4lwifi
,tried to push and failed. Never tried again until now, but it is still failing.
So, if somebody is nice enough to dump the contents of the SM-T500 kernel in a github repo, I can fork and submit the patches without having to upload the whole thing myself.
paziusss said:
Sorry, I have a very bad internet connection (uplink it is ~50-100KiB/s)
I created the repo a month ago: https://github.com/pazos/android_kernel_samsung_gta4lwifi
,tried to push and failed. Never tried again until now, but it is still failing.
So, if somebody is nice enough to dump the contents of the SM-T500 kernel in a github repo, I can fork and submit the patches without having to upload the whole thing myself.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Here you go
jayzarry84 said:
Here you go
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you! It helped.
I had to apply the patch manually, so everything is in a single commit, but should be easy for others to understand what each chunk of code does.
Here you go: https://github.com/pazos/android_kernel_samsung_gta4lwifi
paziusss said:
Thank you! It helped.
I had to apply the patch manually, so everything is in a single commit, but should be easy for others to understand what each chunk of code does.
Here you go: https://github.com/pazos/android_kernel_samsung_gta4lwifi
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just realized I didn't upload the Platform folder contents. It's uploading as we speak
jayzarry84 said:
Just realized I didn't upload the Platform folder contents. It's uploading as we speak
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I really have to ask, can i use this to build a custom rom for the SM-T505 as well?
If not, anyone can make a bount?
matheus_sc said:
If not, anyone can make a bount?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Surely they are already working on it. But it just takes some time. At the moment everything is working optimally despite fastboot. Even root is possible.
pittrich said:
Surely they are already working on it. But it just takes some time. At the moment everything is working optimally despite fastboot. Even root is possible.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know i use xiaomi eu already. Only update is pain to ass
wait for it
Rumour has it some chinese dev is working on it
Any news?
matheus_sc said:
Any news?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Still no sign.... Orangefox also quiet...
The guy who made lots of xiaomi TWRP recoveries stopped developing.
... are kernel (or device/vendor) repos released for it?
This would help.
Do we have TWRP and/or released kernel sources from other Qualcom 888 based devices out there?
raupe said:
... are kernel (or device/vendor) repos released for it?
This would help.
Do we have TWRP and/or released kernel sources from other Qualcom 888 based devices out there?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This?
Xiaomi Mi 11 kernel source code is out, the device is codenamed "venus" - Gizmochina
Yesterday, Xiaomi announced Mi 11 as the world’s first smartphone powered by Qualcomm Snapdragon 888. The handset already went for pre-order soon after the launch and is set to go on sale for the first time on January 1. Ahead of its sale, the company has even released this device’s kernel...
www.gizmochina.com
I read on Xiaomi.eu somewhere that there are issues with how the partitions are made and TWRP is very difficult to make for this. They said it's gonna take either a very long time before a recovery is made, or maybe not even at all.
Danacy said:
I read on Xiaomi.eu somewhere that there are issues with how the partitions are made and TWRP is very difficult to make for this. They said it's gonna take either a very long time before a recovery is made, or maybe not even at all.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah they changed everything over to GKI 1.0 and no one seems to be supporting it, although they found somewhere on a Chinese site a recovery that works (TWRP) if you boot it (don't flash it) and unencrypts the data. It's in the XDA forums now.
[TWRP] [venus] TWRP Recovery for Mi 11
REMOVED! Use this instead : https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/recovery-11-official-teamwin-recovery-project.4374109/
forum.xda-developers.com
mslezak said:
[TWRP] [venus] TWRP Recovery for Mi 11
REMOVED! Use this instead : https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/recovery-11-official-teamwin-recovery-project.4374109/
forum.xda-developers.com
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
*justintime* said:
Still no sign.... Orangefox also quiet...
The guy who made lots of xiaomi TWRP recoveries stopped developing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah Mauronofrio is out, too much work for no return. He was pretty much the last standing open-source TWRP dev out there for tons of devices. The ones from China never get source released... Which would mean that someone would have to pickup the TWRP project and re-engineer it to fit the new GKI 1.0 then 2.0 platforms that run off that ACK. That's a lot of work. I'm talking about keeping the TWRP project open-source. It would very nice if Google stepped in since they are experts on the new format, but no such luck.
mslezak said:
Yeah they changed everything over to GKI 1.0 and no one seems to be supporting it, although they found somewhere on a Chinese site a recovery that works (TWRP) if you boot it (don't flash it) and unencrypts the data. It's in the XDA forums now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Interesting, that would explain also the lack of custom ROMs? But I read that the source code is released, even before the device was launched. Isn't there GKI-support to be found in there?
Danacy said:
Interesting, that would explain also the lack of custom ROMs? But I read that the source code is released, even before the device was launched. Isn't there GKI-support to be found in there?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes they released source there are just no instructions anywhere on how to build the kernel #1 and the GKI modules #2 and combine into a build.
The new Xiaomi.eu weekly includes TWRP for Venus (Mi11) as well as Star (Mi 11 Lite 5G, Mi 11 Pro, Mi 11 Ultra, MIX FOLD) (it's a bootable TWRP, but persists after installation). Seems last week's has added Alioth (Mi 10S, Redmi K40). So I would expect a TWRP for Haydn to show up soon in the weekly Xiaomi.eu releases. Seems they forgot the haydn doesn't have TWRP yet so you can't actually install it! Tried the updater app no go, it can't boot to recovery because they don't have one yet, even though on Xiaomi.eu they say it's available, can't find it anywhere.
BTW the only TWRPs I can actually find are for Venus and Star.
haydn TWRP is not working: https://androidfilehost.com/?fid=14943124697586336730 remember: fastboot boot twrp-3.5.1-haydn.img ... although I tried everything, this TWRP just doesn't work - you boot right into the system after the fastboot boot step. Tried everything I can think of, always boots to system. Guess it's still a waiting game...
mslezak said:
Yes they released source there are just no instructions anywhere on how to build the kernel #1 and the GKI modules #2 and combine into a build.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just one more question since this has been bothering me; what would be needed from Xiaomi? Instructions on how to build the kernel? Have they ever done this before about something like this? Like, is it a reasonable thing to ask them to release instructions? I know some people working there, I could forward the request.
Well I've run this by many many devs.
The issue with the GKI 1.0 and ACK is that you must download the entire AOSP build environment and make sure it works with the separate ACK (Android Common Kernel) and then properly loads the GKI modules from a separate build step. Together they make 1 kernel. This ACK per Linux Version and across vendors should be AOSP and identical. Therefore, a single build should work across all Linux 5.4 based kernels.
But... most devs are just skipping AOSP and inlining the GKI modules so they can have 1 build step. Not exactly what Google intended, but way less storage, and you can use Clang or GCC or whatever you want.
I think what OEMs are posting is merely the entire combined source code, no 2 step build process. Only a single file for the QGKI config portion. Which won't build your GKI modules as it comes. A build script for this (Q)GKI portion would be extremely beneficial.
If any OEM walks through the build steps 1) how to create only the QGKI modules and 2) how to assemble them into 1 kernel with the ACK, that would be great for devs. It just hasn't happened. So we get hacked kernels for the 888 running Linux 5.4.
The Generic Kernel Image (GKI) project | Android Open Source Project
source.android.com
mslezak said:
Well I've run this by many many devs.
The issue with the GKI 1.0 and ACK is that you must download the entire AOSP build environment and make sure it works with the separate ACK (Android Common Kernel) and then properly loads the GKI modules from a separate build step. Together they make 1 kernel. This ACK per Linux Version and across vendors should be AOSP and identical. Therefore, a single build should work across all Linux 5.4 based kernels.
But... most devs are just skipping AOSP and inlining the GKI modules so they can have 1 build step. Not exactly what Google intended, but way less storage, and you can use Clang or GCC or whatever you want.
I think what OEMs are posting is merely the entire combined source code, no 2 step build process. Only a single file for the QGKI config portion. Which won't build your GKI modules as it comes. A build script for this (Q)GKI portion would be extremely beneficial.
If any OEM walks through the build steps 1) how to create only the QGKI modules and 2) how to assemble them into 1 kernel with the ACK, that would be great for devs. It just hasn't happened. So we get hacked kernels for the 888 running Linux 5.4.
The Generic Kernel Image (GKI) project | Android Open Source Project
source.android.com
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
OK, I see. Thank you for your reply. I am going to see how far I can get this. Tnx again!