Hi,
I'm playing with ROM building recently and I when building 2.1 ROM, everyone say "We can't fix X issue because we don't have kernel sources".
I was shocked seeing all great hardware support is on the Eris leak based ROMs.
Why thoses ROMs have better hardware support ? I thought when we port a ROM, we take a working boot.img (kernel + drivers) and the new system.img together. So if I'm not wrong, what make thoses ROMs better ?
I'm probably missing some key understanding. If you can help me, I'll really appreciate.
Regards,
mik
Eris is basically Verizons Wireless's re-branded version of Hero.
The hardware and everything is same, just the physical appearance.
So our new kernel base is now this one ?
I'm asking because I'm building AOSP (cyanogenmod) ROMs so if this new kernel+drivers is the way to go, I'll start wirking with this as base and not the old HERO2.1 one
mik- said:
So our new kernel base is now this one ?
I'm asking because I'm building AOSP (cyanogenmod) ROMs so if this new kernel+drivers is the way to go, I'll start wirking with this as base and not the old HERO2.1 one
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The kernel of the Eris is different to the Hero, they are still using the old kernel on the Eris port
l0st.prophet said:
The kernel of the Eris is different to the Hero, they are still using the old kernel on the Eris port
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So why the hardware support is so good ?
hardware driver...
Isn't all of this supposed to be open source anyway? Like, if the official kernel has better hardware support, why isn't it in the Android Open Source Project (AOSP), if Android is GPL-licensed Free Software? Is there a violation of the GPL going on here?
FunkTrooper said:
Isn't all of this supposed to be open source anyway? Like, if the official kernel has better hardware support, why isn't it in the Android Open Source Project (AOSP), if Android is GPL-licensed Free Software? Is there a violation of the GPL going on here?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because the official kernel isn't officially available, it's still technically in development. They are under no obligation to release it until they release it to the public, by which point we will have it anyway
FunkTrooper said:
Isn't all of this supposed to be open source anyway? Like, if the official kernel has better hardware support, why isn't it in the Android Open Source Project (AOSP), if Android is GPL-licensed Free Software? Is there a violation of the GPL going on here?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Common misconception number 1 - Android is *not* licensed under the GPL, it is licensed under the Apache Software License (ASL). This license is not a copy left license so OEMs who modify the Android source are under absolutely no obligation to make their modified source code available.
However, the Linux kernel upon which Android runs is licensed under the GPL, so HTC must provide the source for any *shipping* software that uses said kernel. Since HTC have not officially released their version of Android 2.1, again they are under no obligation to supply kernel source. The second that they official ship the update, this changes and they are obliged under the terms of the GPL to make the kernel source available.
Regards,
Dave
And I hate to be a complete noob, but are these drivers that provide the nice hardware support part of the kernel?
If not, what difference would it even make if we didn't have the official kernel sources?
Since the Eris has the exact same hardware as the Hero, why can't we use the same kernel as the Eris rom ?
Latoc said:
Since the Eris has the exact same hardware as the Hero, why can't we use the same kernel as the Eris rom ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because it isn't the same hardware.
The Eris is close, but not identical to the Hero. The major difference is it's CDMA, not GSM. And, it uses touch buttons instead of physical buttons.
Other than those two, I'm not sure if there are any other significant differences. Point being that those differences are enough to warrant a different kernel.
e.japonica said:
hardware driver...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So if I understand correctly, the Eris leak based ROM use the old kernel (2.6.29) but newer hardware drivers so my question is correct ... Should we use any Eris based ROM as base to make new AOSP ROMs ?
This way, we will keep the old kernel but new drivers ...
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
mik- said:
So if I understand correctly, the Eris leak based ROM use the old kernel (2.6.29) but newer hardware drivers so my question is correct ... Should we use any Eris based ROM as base to make new AOSP ROMs ?
This way, we will keep the old kernel but new drivers ...
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Really, it's all going to change when we get to official Hero 2.1 ROM (and kernel,) because that's what we'll be using very soon (if we're to believe the hype about 2.1 finally coming this month.)
As for right now, it's up to you. If I were to start working on a ROM, I would use the Eris dump, although you'll have to change to the official kernel in a couple weeks anyway.
I'm not really sure what to say about using "the old kernel but new drivers. I'm not into kernel dev myself, but what's "old" and what's "new" is going to change soon anyway, so I don't think it matters too much at this point.
EDIT: Let me correct myself: If you're going to make an AOSP ROM, you won't use the Eris *ROM* as the base, you'd just use the kernel and drivers. The rest of the system would not have any HTC-ness attached to it (no Sense/HTC Mail/etc), so you'd actually use an AOSP image instead of an Eris/Hero image.
craig0r said:
Really, it's all going to change when we get to official Hero 2.1 ROM (and kernel,) because that's what we'll be using very soon (if we're to believe the hype about 2.1 finally coming this month.)
As for right now, it's up to you. If I were to start working on a ROM, I would use the Eris dump, although you'll have to change to the official kernel in a couple weeks anyway.
I'm not really sure what to say about using "the old kernel but new drivers. I'm not into kernel dev myself, but what's "old" and what's "new" is going to change soon anyway, so I don't think it matters too much at this point.
EDIT: Let me correct myself: If you're going to make an AOSP ROM, you won't use the Eris *ROM* as the base, you'd just use the kernel and drivers. The rest of the system would not have any HTC-ness attached to it (no Sense/HTC Mail/etc), so you'd actually use an AOSP image instead of an Eris/Hero image.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, I know. Sorry to not being clear enough. When we build AOSP build, we take an existing ROM to extract kernel and drivers to make the AOSP code working. When I say take Eris leak based Roms as base, I mean just the kernel/drivers part. I know the whole system will not be taken into account.
Eris and AOSP 2.1 roms
After looking at the previous 2.1 roms that were being used to cook and the Eris now being used by everyone, although both being 2.1 they do appear to be different versions of the same product
The Eris appears to be a cut down version of the ASOP 2.1 version, the mail app is still based around the 1.5 version HTC mail, rather than the mail app that is on ASOP which gives you global address list search etc on exchange, and new features on incoming mail for normal mail accounts.
Are features like this built into the kernel themselves ? or things like mail, dialers just apk files
A few forums are now reporting that the new official version of 2.1 for the hero will be a basic version compared to the versions running on desire and nexus. Which would be a disappointment
Currently, using Jboogie's Rom. I haven't used the new roms based on UK versions yet. Anyway, just came across CM7 RC has just released.
forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=956196
I know its not possible to replace the kernel in Defy. Yet, is it possible that the rom itself can be ported on top of the current available ROMS? Not just the themes, but some functions as well.
I love my defy, but the locked bootlader is taking a huge toll in defy development.
I'd recommend you to check their forums. There are some people that are already talking about this.
But as far as I got it, until the signing key problem is not solved (there are some rumors that Motorola might release it), nobody is going to come up with an CyanogenMod for the Defy.
an official one is not likely unless moto unlocks the bootloader. bcs the bootloader restricts moto-signed kernels and cyanogenmod makes edits to the kernels.
that being said, milestone has got cyanogenmod, they grabbed a cyanogenmod-compatible kernel from a certain brazilian rom and so...
could someone please make a reference post sticky to discourage people from asking this again and again and again
I read in the cyanogenmod forums that that the ROM (the public alpha-1 version) made by arco68 is "unofficial" CM9 ROM. What can be the reason for this custom ROM being "unofficial?"
im sure your not a good of a reader arent you ?
well 1st of all its unofficial because samsung WILL not realease ICS on SGW
and what arco has made is still incomplete ... there is still known bug and unknown bug that hasnt been fix yet ...
and the the ics camera on cm9 for sgw still is not working that's why its not official
chocolemon said:
im sure your not a good of a reader arent you ?
well 1st of all its unofficial because samsung WILL not realease ICS on SGW
and what arco has made is still incomplete ... there is still known bug and unknown bug that hasnt been fix yet ...
and the the ics camera on cm9 for sgw still is not working that's why its not official
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I see .
Before my next question, I wanted to clarify first that by "unofficial," I meant the "unofficial CM9" built by arco68. (I am also aware that Samsung will not release "official" stock ROM)
Now, if that's the case, then what is the difference between the nightly builds (which, I assume are the alpha builds, please correct me if wrong) in the cyanogenmod's device page and the build (Alpha-1) version of arco68's ROM?
it's considered unofficial because it's not being released by the core team from cyanogenmod. They don't and can't work on every single device.
Still, cyanogenmod announced recently that they will support and assist whenever possible independent developers (like arco) and make their ports official at some point and, of course, under certain criteria (QC probably).
AFAIK CM9 for the SGW will become an official CM9 release as soon as it gets finished.
If I'm not mistaken all releases of CM9 are still in alpha stage.
Hello everyone,
now we have a really stable CM9 release and also nearly fully working CM10 builds, I'm wondering whats left to get official CM10 support. Epsylon postet that he an Quarx want to achieve this:
"So we are making a common repo for Defy and Defy+ also, and only this version will have official support..." (or isn't he talking about official CM support?)
CM team posted this diagramm a few month ago. It shows how high the chances are to get official CM9. Well, CM9 seems dead now, but we're still at the marked point I guess:
Now I have two questions: Do you think that even for CM10 a device with same chipset and manufacturer JB is required? Also whats the sense behind this requirement? If we meet Googles ICS/JB APIs and everything is working fine on our device, why do we need other OMAP3 devices with manufacturer ICS/JB?
Maybe we can discuss chances of getting official CM10 in this thread. For me Epsylon seems optimistic, even though he postet this last week:
Epsylon3 said:
Well hmm official will be difficult for the moment because there is not yet OMAP3 devices ....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Cheers!
They need drivers from the same chipset!
Sent from my MB525 using xda app-developers app
ppero196 said:
They need drivers from the same chipset!
Sent from my MB525 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Right now are hopes rest on L.G.
They are scheduled to release ICS for Optimus Black in Q3 2012.
It has the same chipset,GPU.
But drivers normaly are a part of the kernel. So manufactured ICS for LG P970 wouldn't bring advantages from my point. In addition we allready have latest GPU driver and all other parts are also working with ICS/JB (Camera, radio, wlan...).
G00fY2 said:
But drivers normaly are a part of the kernel. So manufactured ICS for LG P970 wouldn't bring advantages from my point. In addition we allready have latest GPU driver and all other parts are also working with ICS/JB (Camera, radio, wlan...).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You actually are making sense .
Maybe the only thing we'll need from it would be the omx decoders .(720)
kanpurite said:
You actually are making sense .
Maybe the only thing we'll need from it would be the omx decoders .(720)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hasn't that been donne allready? (See quarx's 11/07 changelog for CM9)
Motorola Defy, CM7 @ 1Ghz + CM9 multiboot
[Guide] Install double boot CM7 + CM9
[Guide][Root needed] Unsimlock your Defy
[Mod/Fix][APP]Messaging apps with ENTER button enabled!
crakeron said:
Hasn't that been donne allready? (See quarx's 11/07 changelog for CM9)
Motorola Defy, CM7 @ 1Ghz + CM9 multiboot
[Guide] Install double boot CM7 + CM9
[Guide][Root needed] Unsimlock your Defy
[Mod/Fix][APP]Messaging apps with ENTER button enabled!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He is talking about Jellybean..
S3nt fr0m my D3fy/w1u1 GB st4BL3
LG Optimus Black won't be getting the ICS upgrade (at least in Canada) : http://www.gsmarena.com/2011_xperia...no_ics_for_optimus_2x_and_black-news-4570.php
I guess there goes our hopes for official CM10.
Didn't we loose it at the "dedicated GPU" anyway? I thought it was our CPU who was also the GPU. Why would Motorola put a dedicated GPU if they never put an android version using HWA on it?
Anyway no biggie, developers versions released after the official 7.1 & 7.2 have always been better than official releases.
EDIT: my bad, specs on gsmarena says we got a PowerVR SGX530 GPU
I've been looking for a custom rom to use on my Galaxy Ace 2 I8160.
I see many of them are discontinued or abandoned.
Is it still a good idea to choose one of these or should I use one that is still supported?
I might switch rom again at a later time but normally I'm going to stick with the one I'm going to choose for a while.
I didn't research every option in the same detail. Maybe there are up to date versions available.
These are the ones I was considering:
Resurrection Remix (I see there are 2 versions. Maclaw version is still supported? )
Vanir
OmniRom
Paranoid Android (This one doesn't seem to be officially discontinued)
and some other I forgot about...
I could go for CyanogenMod but I'd like something different. Already have CM on my SE Xperia Ray.
Also as list for available roms I found these:
romlister (is this a trusted site?)
this thread
If you have any suggestions or any tips, they are always welcome!:good:
Thanks!
Actually it's all up to you. I don't see any bad reasons to use an abandoned ROM if it is already quite stable. And if you could live with having just the old features (no updates, of course), then go for it.
Some things to consider though:
- Older ROM might have newly found bug that aren't patch, thus might be less secure or more buggy
- older ROM might not have the latest feature, so if you need latest features, it might not have it
- what's more important, since it's abandoned you can't expect support from the original makers.
That being said, again, if you could live with those, nothing is keeping you from using an abandoned ROM
Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk