Related
http://www.google.com/m/url?ei=Utxj...8QFjAE&usg=AFQjCNHby1ckfYOmKipkXxt18wHMy6PdPw
There is the link just released the source code for the desire z,HD,g2 and Droid incredible today. Hope this helps all the devs.
sent from a guy living in a van down by the river
Sweet, so we have new source code for our MT4G kernel. Anything fun you devs can do with this?
There's not much new in this Kernel release for MT4G (Glacier).
HTC updated:
FM Headphone code
Dock Accessory code
Upgraded old DMA engine to the DMA engine from Aurora Project (Google Chrome project)
That's it... If you use this as baseline, you will still have Youtube issues
If you want to find out more about kernels, read my Sense Kernel thread...
I am somewhat disappointed by this HTC release because it means T-Mobile is getting this code also, which means the upcoming OTA update may not be Gingerbread but just a maintenance release to fix a few minor bugs.
Until HTC release their Gingerbread Kernel, we are stuck @ Froyo (Linux Kernel 2.6.32 based).
Maybe after I reach version 1.0.0 for my Sense Kernel, I might start a pure Gingerbread Kernel which is Linux Kernel version 2.6.35+
the only thing they need to update is the fact that the focusing on the camera is all out of wack
im a noob
but the nexus one got gingerbread. maybe that can help out our community?
TopazUser1 said:
im a noob
but the nexus one got gingerbread. maybe that can help out our community?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LOL download a cm7 rom and you will have gingerbread
faux123 said:
FM Headphone code
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Does that mean someone could make an app that could record FM radio? Just a thought.
Hi all.
Not sure whether this was the right place to post, but coming from a development perspective, I thought it was fitting. If not, mods - please feel free to move.
This thread is here to bring the currently worked on 3.0 kernel for the Desire to the HD2 developers' attention. There is minimal difference in the Desire hardware when compared to the HD2, and therefore would probably not be a difficult port to perform.
The main benefit of porting this kernel over to the HD2 is the improvement in ICS, namely through Hardware Acceleration. Although it hasn't been confirmed yet, the OP over in the Desire thread seems to think Hardware Acceleration is working.
I'm reaching out to all the HD2 developers to collaborate their efforts in an attempt to port this over to HD2 - it will bring us an even more well-rounded ICS build, extending the already expanded boundaries of our beloved HD2's.
The link to the original thread is here.
The link to the github source code is here.
All credits go to Chaosz-X for the current work on the kernel. I am simply acting as a messenger.
I wish you guys luck, and hopefully it won't take long to get some work going on this!
MrP.
It is not as easy as you might think. Altough the hardware is the same the radio is completely different because it is from windows mobile. Wich makes most of the work on the ics kernel useless. No and radio's can not be changed easily because they are closed source.
then how did the desire 2.6.35 kernel get ported ?
I thought hardware acceleration was already working in ICS.
jan-willem3 said:
It is not as easy as you might think. Altough the hardware is the same the radio is completely different because it is from windows mobile. Wich makes most of the work on the ics kernel useless. No and radio's can not be changed easily because they are closed source.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Forgive me for my lack of extensive knowledge in the kernel department, but, considering that quite a few of the currently developed kernels for the HD2 are based on the Desire sources, I would've assumed that what was done before in porting the 2.6.35 kernel, could be adapted to work with this kernel.
Once again, not saying that's right, because I'm basing that conclusion off logical thought, not experience.
Visentinel said:
then how did the desire 2.6.35 kernel get ported ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My point above exactly. If it's been done before, surely the steps needed to adapt the 3.0 kernel are not far out of reach. The people I think we should be talking to are marc1706, and tytung. I'll pop them a PM when I have a moment.
KyJelly69 said:
I thought hardware acceleration was already working in ICS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's not true Hardware Acceleration - its a hack of sorts. It gives a boost in performance no doubt, but most likely no where near true Hardware Acceleration.
Thanks for the input guys.
MrP.
It might be possible to port the 3.0 kernel to the HD2 but the thread you linked is currently providing a 2.6.35.14 kernel. They are planning on releasing a 3.0 kernel.
In order to get a 100% supported hardware acceleration we will need a 3.0 kernel, since ICS was build for the 3.0 kernel. It's pretty much the same with the glitches in sense 2.1 and 3.x ROMs we had prior to using the desire .35 kernel.
marc1706 said:
It might be possible to port the 3.0 kernel to the HD2 but the thread you linked is currently providing a 2.6.35.14 kernel. They are planning on releasing a 3.0 kernel.
In order to get a 100% supported hardware acceleration we will need a 3.0 kernel, since ICS was build for the 3.0 kernel. It's pretty much the same with the glitches in sense 2.1 and 3.x ROMs we had prior to using the desire .35 kernel.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for your input marc1076.
I am aware that it's not 3.0 yet, however, he has backported quite a few things for now, mainly concerning hardware acceleration (as written in the OP).
Would it not be a good step to then try this kernel on our current ICS builds in the hopes of any improvement? Or perhaps alternatively incorporate the backports (possibly more difficult) into our current ICS kernel(s) in an attempt to edge closer to true Hardware Acceleration?
A few thoughts, may be possible, or not - feel free to correct me. Thanks again for the advice.
MrP.
MrPadie said:
Thanks for your input marc1076.
I am aware that it's not 3.0 yet, however, he has backported quite a few things for now, mainly concerning hardware acceleration (as written in the OP).
Would it not be a good step to then try this kernel on our current ICS builds in the hopes of any improvement? Or perhaps alternatively incorporate the backports (possibly more difficult) into our current ICS kernel(s) in an attempt to edge closer to true Hardware Acceleration?
A few thoughts, may be possible, or not - feel free to correct me. Thanks again for the advice.
MrP.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Once I see some true ics kernels with specific commits for ics you will see them appear in our kernels.
Sent from my HTC HD2 using XDA App
warrenb213 said:
Once I see some true ics kernels with specific commits for ics you will see them appear in our kernels.
Sent from my HTC HD2 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for your reply warrenb213.
However, I'm kinda lost as to what you are saying - are you saying that our current kernel (namely Tytung's kernel) for ICS is not a proper ICS kernel (which it isn't really, it's adapted from GB kernel from what I can tell), and until we have a kernel dedicated to ICS, there won't be any of the above mentioned additions?
If that's the case, what is your reasoning for saying that if I may ask? And also, where can these 'true' ICS kernels be sourced from? (As far as I know, the only 'true' ICS kernels around are based on 3.0, which in essence, defeats the object of us porting these additions back in the first place).
MrP.
MrPadie said:
Thanks for your reply warrenb213.
However, I'm kinda lost as to what you are saying - are you saying that our current kernel (namely Tytung's kernel) for ICS is not a proper ICS kernel (which it isn't really, it's adapted from GB kernel from what I can tell), and until we have a kernel dedicated to ICS, there won't be any of the above mentioned additions?
If that's the case, what is your reasoning for saying that if I may ask? And also, where can these 'true' ICS kernels be sourced from? (As far as I know, the only 'true' ICS kernels around are based on 3.0, which in essence, defeats the object of us porting these additions back in the first place).
MrP.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First of all, tytung's kernel which is based on hastarin's sd kernel is a base of .32 kernel from froyo source of the eVO 4g. It was not supposed to be used in gb but since it works, no worries.
Even though AOSP is opensource, the driver code for the devices is not, which makes porting difficult and moreso when the device actually never had any drivers for that specific os (read Android on HD2).
There is already an initiative (thread to be precise) in the qualcomm developer forums pleading them to opensource the qsd8250 drivers so that devs who are not so rich can backport ics to n1, desire (or HD2 for that matter) since it is clear that HTC certainly won't and google too has given up n1.
What tytung did to make his kernel work with ics is add upon the old base, it works but is dirty and should lead to unexpected issues.
The true ics kernels are based on the 3.0.1-tag of linus's repo.
You can sync into linus's 3.0.1 and compare it to the kernel source code of Galaxy Nexus, see the android changes, port them to the vanilla kernel, copy htcleo board files while rebasing them on 3.0.1 and adding the radio code from current kernels. It is far easy to say this than to actually do this when looking at the staggering size of the linux codebase.
The question is how many of the HD2-specific changes were broken by
a) changes in the upstream Linux codebase in between 2.6.32 and 2.6.40 (aka 3.0)?
b) android-specific changes between Froyo, GB and ICS
EDIT: There seems to be a working (except for USB mass storage) 2.6.35 kernel here. This at least reduces the number of upstream code changes to deal with.
Dr_Grip said:
EDIT: There seems to be a working (except for USB mass storage) 2.6.35 kernel here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
USB mass storage works, confirmed it once again. USB Tethering doesn't work. Still working on it.
Dr_Grip said:
The question is how many of the HD2-specific changes were broken by
a) changes in the upstream Linux codebase in between 2.6.32 and 2.6.40 (aka 3.0)?
b) android-specific changes between Froyo, GB and ICS
EDIT: There seems to be a working (except for USB mass storage) 2.6.35 kernel here. This at least reduces the number of upstream code changes to deal with.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And a fully working one here
Visentinel said:
then how did the desire 2.6.35 kernel get ported ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because it was an htc kernel just like the prevous evo 4g kernel so porting it was more easy. If you look at the 2.6.35 cm kernel it is highly unstable and the MSM kernel is also an AOSP kernel like the cm kernel.
jan-willem3 said:
Because it was an htc kernel just like the prevous evo 4g kernel so porting it was more easy. If you look at the 2.6.35 cm kernel it is highly unstable and the MSM kernel is also an AOSP kernel like the cm kernel.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That does not make sense, I think. If the Desire devs get a working kernel for the Desire, the changes needed to make it working on the HD2 should be the same no matter if they are starting from a HTC or an AOSP codebase.
That it will be more complicated to get a working 3.0 Desire kernel without HTC's codebase is a challenge the Desire devs will have to face unrelated of the porting effort to the HD2.
uzi2 said:
And a fully working one here
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Can you confirm that everything works?
My kernel is forked from ACA 2.6.35 non-sense and developed further...
fhasovic said:
Can you confirm that everything works?
My kernel is forked from ACA 2.6.35 non-sense and developed further...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are voice recorder issues in the current version, but these are fixed in the latest release 0103
Swyped from my aHD2oid
SPEAKING FOR THE NOOBS
I LOVE MY PHONE TO ME IT'S SUPER FAST,
BUT WHAT YOU GUYS ARE SAYING IS THAT IF WE HAD A NATIVE ANDROID WITH THE SAME SPECS AS OUR HD2 IT WOULD BE EVEN FASTER AND BETTER?
THIS IS MY FIRST SMART PHONE SO I'M JUST CURIOUS ABOUT THAT.
Sent from my HD2 using xda premium
turn your caps lock off.
Short answer: You can expect the same performance from the HD2 as from the Nexus One and Desire, given it runs the same software.
Slightly longer answer: This is a development thread. What we are talking about is getting the linux kernel (think: core of the system) version used by ICS running on our phone.
Getting this to work -as opposed to trying to get a Froyo/GB kernel working with ICS- would benefit both performance and stability.
There are some issues with that. Most of them are related to the fact that Google and HTC have dropped official support for the Nexus One and Desire. The only issue related to the HD2 not being an native Android phone is the need for a special radio driver.
EDIT: If you tried to be funny: You failed.
uzi2 said:
There are voice recorder issues in the current version, but these are fixed in the latest release 0103
Swyped from my aHD2oid
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Uzi is correct. Ill be doing a fs thing soon, a Bluetooth thing soon, and more cam related stuff. But overall 99% is fully working.
Sent from my HTC HD2 using XDA App
Can anyone please explain what AOKP is? I know it stands for Android Open Kang Project, but what is Kang? I've tried searching the forums here and in RootzWiki as well as a general Google search and I've come up with nothing that is helpful.
I've seen a lot of AOKP roms, but no explanation as to exactly what they are, although I've noticed that many of them have a lot of the CM9 mods.
Thank You!
I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure "Kang" is just the name of the team that develops the ROM.
Kinbote said:
I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure "Kang" is just the name of the team that develops the ROM.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
im not sure if that was what it meant to begin with, but these days it means a rom compiled by a person rather than a server.
so most of CM's roms are compiled automatically by there servers. However some people make CM Kangs by taking the source and compiling it them selves. This means they can add all the commits/mods/features which the servers have but dont have assisgned to the roms for various reasons.
So Kangs will often have slightly newer features and are also less likely to have issues because a user has gone through and made sure everything is in the rom(Hopefully). where as the servers wont know if a driver is broken/missing.
You can also get kangs of other roms i suppose. sorry if i repeated myself
Kang
The process of creating a code based of someone else's code or reapplying code that someone else created into your own code (e.g. git cherry-pick)
http://wiki.cyanogenmod.com/wiki/Terminology
AOKP is a play on AOSP, the Android Open Source Project.
AOKP is basically any rom made by or from the CyanogenMod source. It it NOT true CyanogenMod however.
Oh, well I was completely off. Thanks for the corrections.
neok44 said:
AOKP is a play on AOSP, the Android Open Source Project.
AOKP is basically any rom made by or from the CyanogenMod source. It it NOT true CyanogenMod however.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
AOKP is actually not from CM source. As you can see in his ROM thread, http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1402341 it has nothing to do with CM9 kangs.
It's just a play off AOSP and the general status of the Android community. AOKP is build from AOSP source, not CM9, even though I use bits and pieces of it. If you look, most of the features to AOKP are unique .
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
i stand corrected. i thought it was due to their use of the word in almost everything.
Interesting.
It certainly has the oddest boot animation of the lot. Trés cute..
Thanks Roman!
Romanbb said:
It's just a play off AOSP and the general status of the Android community. AOKP is build from AOSP source, not CM9, even though I use bits and pieces of it. If you look, most of the features to AOKP are unique .
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
oh....... I thought it was a reference to chess ....Android Opening King Pawn 1st...... Thx for clearing that up...........
Wow! Thanks for all the responses. I'm glad that I'm not the only one who didn't know what it meant, but I think I have a better idea now. But why use Kang instead of Source (AOKP instead of AOSP) if it's built from source? I was always afraid to flash an AOKP ROM because I didn't know what it was and just thought that it was a ROM in its early alpha stages and had a ton of bugs.
Thanks again!!!
erik1213 said:
Wow! Thanks for all the responses. I'm glad that I'm not the only one who didn't know what it meant, but I think I have a better idea now. But why use Kang instead of Source (AOKP instead of AOSP) if it's built from source? I was always afraid to flash an AOKP ROM because I didn't know what it was and just thought that it was a ROM in its early alpha stages and had a ton of bugs.
Thanks again!!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because AOSP is pure stock Android. With AOKP, new features are being added in. So calling his ROM AOSP when its not AOSP is misleading.
AOKP is just simply a name of a ROM. Developers can give their ROM names anything they'd like. AOKP is certainly not buggy and I use it as a daily driver (even on nightlies). Very good ROM and maintained with updates
zephiK said:
Because AOSP is pure stock Android. With AOKP, new features are being added in. So calling his ROM AOSP when its not AOSP is misleading.
AOKP is just simply a name of a ROM. Developers can give their ROM names anything they'd like. AOKP is certainly not buggy and I use it as a daily driver (even on nightlies). Very good ROM and maintained with updates
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok, great! I'm coming from the original Incredible and have never heard of AOKP til now, so thanks for helping clarify for me. Looks like AOKP might be my next ROM choice
Thanks to the OP for creating this thread, I was wondering the same thing.
erik1213 said:
Ok, great! I'm coming from the original Incredible and have never heard of AOKP til now, so thanks for helping clarify for me. Looks like AOKP might be my next ROM choice
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're welcome. I've never heard of it either but I just always assumed it was a name of a ROM
I recommend using franco's kernel with the ROM. Both of them push out updates every other day. You can always wait for feedback on the kernel before flashing but they're usually both good to go in terms of stability
There's a lot of debate about what kang actually means. From what I've read it's developed to mean anytime you take bits and pieces of code from other people and incorporate them into your own mod. If you didn't write it then you "kanged" it from someone else. Someone else probably knows the original origin of the word, but at least this gives a good definition.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
so they are or aren't based off of Klingon technology?
õ_Ô
Will there be a cm 9 for the Inc? Because there is a lot of supported phones but not the Inc
I just need to flash something
Sent from my ADR6300 using xda premium
Try kushdeck's ROM, I'm running it and it works great.
Sent from my ADR6300 using xda premium
Kushdecks rom is pretty great. I ran the latest build for several days with no problem.
You guys both didn't answer the question, lmfao Are we getting dropped?
Technically there are no truly supported device for CM9 as they haven't even made any nightly releases. With that said, according to the official statement, QSD8250 devices (Nexus One, Inc, Evo4g) should be supported. That is planned but not definite.
http://www.cyanogenmod.com/blog/cm9-progress-update
Above is the official statement from CM. If you want CM9 support, CUViper is the CM maintainer for the Inc. Coming from a Galaxy Nexus user using AOSP, AOKP is a great ROM based on stock. CM9 is not really even ready on the GNex so I'd say they're still working on it. It's not as simple as a transition from froyo to gingerbread.
Evervolv ICS rom preview is better than omx and INC-Deck imo. I have a post on rootzwiki with everything you need, link to the rom, gapps and the exchange.apk fix
apophis9283 said:
Evervolv ICS rom preview is better than omx and INC-Deck imo. I have a post on rootzwiki with everything you need, link to the rom, gapps and the exchange.apk fix
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Haha, maybe I should just follow you around apophis and keep giving a +1 to Evervolv ICS p5
But seriously, best ICS rom out there right now IMHO
Hey a good rom is a good rom. Im not bashing other devs but the rom is the most complete at the moment. Since he only post updates on twitter i post everything everywhere i can so more people can have this awesome rom
I used to be a hard core cyanogenmod user and I recently switched over to MIUI which will be coming out with v4 soon
I am much happier with MIUI.. give it a try..
jss24,
Is MIUI v4 based upon ICS? Is there some place that gives info about what can be expected out it. I would like see what they are cooking up.
yes there is a CM9 in the works. most of the ICS builds that are out now for the phone are repo'ed from CM source.
I don't know if CM9 will get inc support but the kushdeck alpha 5 has the camera working now; so feel free to FLASH AWAY!! eh, eh, see what he did there?
There is already a CM9 release out for the INC, but I'm assuming it's very buggy and it is missing some important apps.
Here's the link:
http://rootzwiki.com/topic/10750-romunofficialcm9-with-working-hardware-acceleration/
Be sure to check further down the page for another download that's required in order to boot it up.
Not really a release more along the lines of a port. I dont believe it will have any more support
nope R2 pulled repo from cm so its not a port. they are work on it. we still have one maintainer left. CUViper. i have faith in him.
First line in r2s post says , so i ported cm9 to the inc earlier to see if hardware acceleration worked
Why would he say that if it wasnt a port?
Likely to be a port only, but that's where most of our great ROMs come from. These are called AOSP for a reason...
On another note, CCM7 (V10) is a great ROM to hold you off until ICS hits us in February, oops did I drop dates?
Oh well, I was going to post pictures of my setup, but I guess I am too new.
What is ccm7 v10? Where can it be found
Condemned cm7, ill pass
I just checked Samsung sources and the ICS sources are live, so my question is isnt this was CM9 is waiting for to come out of Alpha?
FF18 is live along with LEN,LF9,LG2
Thanks in advanced
JaceAlvejetti said:
I just checked Samsung sources and the ICS sources are live, so my question is isnt this was CM9 is waiting for to come out of Alpha?
FF18 is live along with LEN,LF9,LG2
Thanks in advanced
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Come out of Alpha - not technically, it was for the E4GT to be an official port. But there are changes to be made to it for it to work correctly with CM9, and they are working on them, you need to be patient.
Patients isnt an issue, I'm just a fan of CM, and thought I read that at some point, Thanks for the reponse though, You want to talk about Patients look at the Transformer Prime..