I can bet that the ppl who created Linaro will find errors in JellyBean.
What do u think this would mean if you were to Over clock the Nexus, have a JellyBean, and have a version of it in the form of Linaro???
Would it be like having a crazy fast phone on steroids???
Dragn4rce said:
I can bet that the ppl who created Linaro will find errors in JellyBean.
What do u think this would mean if you were to Over clock the Nexus, have a JellyBean, and have a version of it in the form of Linaro???
Would it be like having a crazy fast phone on steroids???
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I get the impression that you aren't familiar with what Linaro really is. It isn't about finding errors in Android. It is about (in this case) modifying Android to take advantage of newer GCC compiler flags. It was never about finding errors in Android.
adrynalyne said:
I get the impression that you aren't familiar with what Linaro really is. It isn't about finding errors in Android. It is about (in this case) modifying Android to take advantage of newer GCC compiler flags. It was never about finding errors in Android.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
....... can u explain it for a kid like me.
Dragn4rce said:
I can bet that the ppl who created Linaro will find errors in JellyBean.
What do u think this would mean if you were to Over clock the Nexus, have a JellyBean, and have a version of it in the form of Linaro???
Would it be like having a crazy fast phone on steroids???
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1) This:
adrynalyne said:
I get the impression that you aren't familiar with what Linaro really is. It isn't about finding errors in Android. It is about (in this case) modifying Android to take advantage of newer GCC compiler flags. It was never about finding errors in Android.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
2) No. I tried Linaro and over clocking on ICS. The results were very minute. In fact, the only thing I noticed is that the recent apps button launched faster. That was it.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
InvalidUsername said:
1) This:
2) No. I tried Linaro and over clocking on ICS. The results were very minute. In fact, the only thing I noticed is that the recent apps button launched faster. That was it.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've noticed differencees. Just depends what u do the device.
Wonder what level of performance you're expecting. I for one an extremely happy w/ the stock JB experience, quite amazing for a dev preview.
---------- Post added at 08:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:07 AM ----------
InvalidUsername said:
1) This:
2) No. I tried Linaro and over clocking on ICS. The results were very minute. In fact, the only thing I noticed is that the recent apps button launched faster. That was it.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From what I have read the entire rom/kernel needs to be compiled form the Linaro TC in order to see the true benefits. Most roms just have bits and pieces baked into them.
zetsumeikuro said:
Wonder what level of performance you're expecting. I for one an extremely happy w/ the stock JB experience, quite amazing for a dev preview.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah me too. But when I clocked up to 1.4GHz on Franco and Ran Linaro, it was faster then a non linaro Rom on 1.2GHz.
Since JellyBean exceeds this, imagine how much faster it'll be.
Dragn4rce said:
....... can u explain it for a kid like me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, GNU/Linux is an open source project that is constantly evolving. Due to its OSS nature, there are constant changes from multiple sources. These changes bring things such as new features and in this case, improved performance. Some of these performance improvement have been made to compilers. However to take advantage of these compilers, flags have to be set in the source. Think of a flag as an optimization. However, if the code isn't coded to work with these optimizations, additional changes must be made. Thats what Linaro has done. They modified Android to accept compiler flags for gcc 4.7.x. Android is designed to be compiled with gcc 4.4.x.
There are some caveats to this. If not all of the code is ready for the optimizations, things can break. Some flags can destabilize an application.
Think of Linaro's optimizqations as bleeding edge. If you play with bleeding edge, you will bleed somewhere. Things will break at some point. This is the nature of the beast.
As a point of reference, most Linux distros are not bleeding edge for this very reason. Ubuntu uses old stuff by the time a new release rolls out.
Linaro handles several projects. In fact, Ubuntu uses Linaro GCC in their repos.
adrynalyne said:
Well, GNU/Linux is an open source project that is constantly evolving. Due to its OSS nature, there are constant changes from multiple sources. These changes bring things such as new features and in this case, improved performance. Some of these performance improvement have been made to compilers. However to take advantage of these compilers, flags have to be set in the source. Think of a flag as an optimization. However, if the code isn't coded to work with these optimizations, additional changes must be made. Thats what Linaro has done. They modified Android to accept compiler flags for gcc 4.7.x. Android is designed to be compiled with gcc 4.4.x.
There are some caveats to this. If not all of the code is ready for the optimizations, things can break. Some flags can destabilize an application.
Think of Linaro's optimizqations as bleeding edge. If you play with bleeding edge, you will bleed somewhere. Things will break at some point. This is the nature of the beast.
As a point of reference, most Linux distros are not bleeding edge for this very reason. Ubuntu uses old stuff by the time a new release rolls out.
Linaro handles several projects. In fact, Ubuntu uses Linaro GCC in their repos.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank You!!!
Related
Interesting link here guys wonder if One x can get some of this.
http://liliputing.com/2012/06/android-is-about-to-get-a-lot-faster-thanks-to-linaro.html
shankly1985 said:
Interesting link here guys wonder if One x can get some of this.
http://liliputing.com/2012/06/android-is-about-to-get-a-lot-faster-thanks-to-linaro.html
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm impressed.
shankly1985 said:
Interesting link here guys wonder if One x can get some of this.
http://liliputing.com/2012/06/android-is-about-to-get-a-lot-faster-thanks-to-linaro.html
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow, bring it on!
What i would be interested in is whether battery consumption is therefor increased or if it remains the same? Either way, i hope this gets the attention it deserves. It doubles the fps, this is crazy!
nvidia is not involved in this project according to linaro website
the dev in the video mentioned they were only developing for ARM processors.. .. looks like the wait begins
AndrewJ41 said:
the dev in the video mentioned they were only developing for ARM processors.. .. looks like the wait begins
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
99,99% of all Android devices are ARM. Intel has just ported it to x86 but there has never been a worlwide release of an Intel-Android phone yet, so it makes a lot of sense to keep it on ARM. Needless to say that the HOX is ARM-based too. No need for sad faces...
basically if u use custom rom which is based on AOSP, AOKP & CM9 your in luck because these developers can use this now,
while sense have to wait for htc to update... thus us <---- right?
personally i dont see if happening anytime soon
Not happening on tegra just because Nvidia is a bad company and will not release any source for their drivers and so therefore there's no way to port the timizations over.
thunder07 said:
basically if u use custom rom which is based on AOSP, AOKP & CM9 your in luck because these developers can use this now,
while sense have to wait for htc to update... thus us <---- right?
personally i dont see if happening anytime soon
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wouldn't google have to implement this into their source or can this be done via kernel update from htc ?.
shadehh said:
What i would be interested in is whether battery consumption is therefor increased or if it remains the same? Either way, i hope this gets the attention it deserves. It doubles the fps, this is crazy!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would guess less battery usage. It goes faster because the code is better optimised and therefore fewer instructions to achieve the same goal.
Hunt3r.j2 said:
Not happening on tegra just because Nvidia is a bad company and will not release any source for their drivers and so therefore there's no way to port the timizations over.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think the ABI is affected by these changes, so it should be possible to build the kernel and still use the prebuilt nVidia binary drivers.
Hunt3r.j2 said:
Not happening on tegra just because Nvidia is a bad company and will not release any source for their drivers and so therefore there's no way to port the timizations over.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Aren't this changes made to the google code?
Linaro has been applied to CM9 Domination ROM [JUN14-Build3] today On any CM9 build I tried before this all I could acheive on quadrant was around 4300 now im hitting 5000+ with this build.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1692415
13pointseven said:
Linaro has been applied to CM9 Domination ROM [JUN14-Build3] today On any CM9 build I tried before this all I could acheive on quadrant was around 4300 now im hitting 5000+ with this build.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1692415
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm getting 5000 with stock ROM
Sent from my HTC One X using xda premium
13pointseven said:
Linaro has been applied to CM9 Domination ROM [JUN14-Build3] today On any CM9 build I tried before this all I could acheive on quadrant was around 4300 now im hitting 5000+ with this build.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1692415
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
as you can see in the users feedback opf this ROM lots of GPU acceleration issues
on the linaro website FAQ
its actually said they dont support Nvidia processors since NV didnt join the program
anyway ill keep my eyes on that ROM
To be fair I think nvidia will keep a close eye on this and work that has worth they will use internally, so its not all bad. It does however mean a long wait until users see anything from it though
Hunt3r.j2 said:
Not happening on tegra just because Nvidia is a bad company and will not release any source for their drivers and so therefore there's no way to port the timizations over.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Most likely nvidia would like to release the source but can't because of non disclosure agreements with 3rd parties. Anyway acoording to the video most optimization is to the cpu so even on sense we could soon see some of the optimizations on custom roms.
Also a while ago I build custum RPM packages on Mandriva, when building on Mandriva by default it uses strict aliasing and many packages refused to build but adapting the code to compile was relatively easy, even for someone like me with little to no experience in coding.
This would do really, really great on the one x.
How hard is it to port the toolchain to tegra3?
Sent from my HTC One X using XDA
oOzzy` said:
This would do really, really great on the one x.
How hard is it to port the toolchain to tegra3?
Sent from my HTC One X using XDA
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
To get a issue free port I would say it needs Nvidia to do this.
Sent from my HTC One X using xda premium
I have some questions concerning Linaro optimizations. I can't find a ROM ready to run on my Galaxy Nexus so I made my own using Linaro's images (system, userdata and boot) and the result isn't spectacular:
1. no cellular connectivity
2. some graphical glitches -- red bands that surround the display at times
Has anyone made a ROM from their images/source that actually works as it should? I tried their latest AOSP Blob, 71, by the way. Is the 12.08 release better in this regard?
I'm sporting the Android 4.1.1 JRO03R + Linaro kernel ROM from Galaxy Nexus Android Development and I'm getting mixed results:
1. In Antutu I'm getting a maximum of ~6400 points and minimum of ~5400 points while the phone was pretty hot.
2. Quadrant remains relatively consistent during testing, with ~2280 points
3. Velamo (latest) I get ~1300 in HTML5 and ~390 in Metal -- just for reference, I did not test it in CM10 or any other ROM before
The difference between the two benchmarks in weird considering that with CM10 + Franco's latest kernel I get:
1. ~6500 points in Antutu
2. ~2900 points in Quadrant
Any idea why the Antutu scores are so close, while Quadrant is not? It seems odd that one benchmark posts a great improvement over stock that is similar to another ROM while another is quite similar. Benchmarks are not necessarily an indicative of actual performance or feel, but nonetheless provide a reference point and I'm curious about the difference in growth.
Quadrant is a horrible benchmark, never care what it says.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
It might be so, but the biggest issue I'm having is with Linaro, not Quadrant.
F_T_B said:
I have some questions concerning Linaro optimizations. I can't find a ROM ready to run on my Galaxy Nexus so I made my own using Linaro's images (system, userdata and boot) and the result isn't spectacular:
1. no cellular connectivity
2. some graphical glitches -- red bands that surround the display at times
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1- missing gsm binary
2- thats no graphical glitch, that's a feature of android itself when either userdebug or eng variants are built.
suggestion: try to build from their source.
sent from my i9250
Vzw has a linaro release, they are always faster but have some odd quirks. On the incredible it made it tons faster unfortunately this also resulted with random reboots and battery drainage and other odd quirks. I did try the linaro build and only really noticed battery drainage and graphical glitches.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
bk201doesntexist said:
1- missing gsm binary
2- thats no graphical glitch, that's a feature of android itself when either userdebug or eng variants are built.
suggestion: try to build from their source.
sent from my i9250
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1. Thanks, I was guessing towards that but I thought their instructions also covered that. Pretty weird that they don't considering I managed to add the VGA driver by using their scripts.
2. Did not know that, thanks.
I'll see whether it's worth it or not when I'll have the chance. Much appreciated.
Howdy,
I'm new here, so go easy on me.
So I just upgraded my stock Galaxy Nexus to CyanogenMod 10.1 and I noticed that the kernel was still at version 3.0.x. At the same time, I see that there are newer Android kernels, and my understanding is that Texas Instruments had some folks working on that 3.0 kernel that made it work well on the OMAP chip in the GNex, but TI has given up on phones, leaving the Galaxy Nexus' OMAP architecture somewhat abandoned when it comes to phones. Everyone keeps saying that TI abandoned OMAP and that the Galaxy Nexus is stuck at 3.0 forever.
In particular, support for SSD 'TRIM' on dm-crypt volumes was added in kernel 3.1. That's a big deal if you encrypt your phone and it starts crawling sooner than it should because your slack can't be trimmed.
So, being not a stranger to Google and git trees, I went searching around. I have a few questions:
1. It appears that the OMAP magic lives on and gets updates in the form of Linaro's offerings. Could their kernel be brought into CyanogenMod (or any other modded ROM)?
2. Are the Linaro Galaxy Nexus builds actually usable on its own? Can I just follow their instructions and have a working usable system in a few hours?
3. Assuming that the Linaro builds are mostly development or barebones, and that their kernel works on the Galaxy Nexus, are there any fully-polished ROMs out there that run Linaro-based kernels?
4. Assuming 'no' to 3 and 4, can I pop ONLY a new kernel into an existing CM install, or will that Break Things Horribly?
I've learned from your question that The makers of our chipset has stopped supporting it ,and for me ,this news would make me upgrade to another phone
Thanks
tarekh020 said:
...The makers of our chipset has stopped supporting it ,and for me ,this news would make me upgrade to another phone
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But why should that matter? If the source for the 3.0.31 kernel with the 'tuna'-specific stuff is out in the open, and Linaro is keeping the ball running witht he overall OMAP subarchitecture, then shouldn't it be relatively simple to keep pushing the customizations from 3.0.31-tuna up into newer kernel versions?
There are also some binary bits and pieces available from Google for this phone, but I think it would be worthwhile to see 'how far they go' as far as kernel versions.
I mean, normally I'd understand leaving the Galaxy Nexus at 3.0.x, but there's a BIG BUG with regards to the dm-crypt layer not passing TRIM commands to the flash that turns the phone into a slug after a while, and the bug is fixed in kernel 3.1 and up.
mangeek said:
But why should that matter? If the source for the 3.0.31 kernel with the 'tuna'-specific stuff is out in the open, and Linaro is keeping the ball running witht he overall OMAP subarchitecture, then shouldn't it be relatively simple to keep pushing the customizations from 3.0.31-tuna up into newer kernel versions?
There are also some binary bits and pieces available from Google for this phone, but I think it would be worthwhile to see 'how far they go' as far as kernel versions.
I mean, normally I'd understand leaving the Galaxy Nexus at 3.0.x, but there's a BIG BUG with regards to the dm-crypt layer not passing TRIM commands to the flash that turns the phone into a slug after a while, and the bug is fixed in kernel 3.1 and up.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Most kernels out right now like ASKP, Franco etc...are based on 3.0.8X. The Gnex isn't stuck on 3.0 either. One of the kernel devs has gotten 3.4 working but a kernel was never released, and there are also apps and scripts that force TRIM so I don't think it's much of an issue but I don't know much about kernels and stuff anyways...
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4 Beta
bmg1001 said:
Most kernels out right now... are based on 3.0.8X. The Gnex isn't stuck on 3.0 either. One of the kernel devs has gotten 3.4 working but a kernel was never released, and there are also apps and scripts that force TRIM so I don't think it's much of an issue but I don't know much about kernels and stuff anyways...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's simple to overlay 3.0.31+ on top of 3.0.x to get 3.0.85, etc., but those only provide minor bug fixes. The part that needs to get into the Galaxy Nexus is from 3.1 or newer, where dm-crypt has a 'discards' option that allows encrypted volumes to TRIM.
As it stands now, encrypted volumes can't TRIM, not even with third-party utilities. TRIM exists to free-up large contiguous blocks of zeroed writeable space, and the dm-crypt in 3.0.x writes encrypted gobbledygook to the entire volume, even empty space. That means that write performance on an encrypted Galaxy Nexus is -always- bad and can't be trimmed.
As for the 3.4... There are Google experimental 3.4 and 3.8 kernels, but they're for newer devices and don't seem to include the various bits-and-pieces that the TI OMAP team added to get the Galaxy Nexus running.
Someone needs to either backport newer versions of dm-crypt to 3.0.x and enable discards by default, or they need to move the Galaxy Nexus-specific code up to newer (3.1+, not 3.0.31+) revisions of the kernel. I prefer the latter, as it would yield many other benefits as well.
This is a booting CAF 3.10 kernel for none other than our shiny OnePlus One. Personally, I'm satisfied with my phone as it is with a 3.4 kernel (and 3.10 is a lot of work without proper firmware), so I've given up on developing this 3.10 kernel. This thread is just a free-for-all for anyone who wants to have a crack at developing 3.10.
I threw this kernel together pretty sloppily 2 months ago, so I apologize for the lack of full git history from CAF and some messy code from me. The kernel is based off of the LA.BF.2.1_rb1.xx branch from CAF. The kernel should boot as-is on the official CM nightlies, and it is confirmed to boot on my CM12.1 builds. All it requires is updated WCNSS configuration binaries to boot (flashable zip available in the downloads tab of the thread). The kernel currently only supports JDI command-mode panels, and I compiled the kernel with Google's GCC 4.8 toolchain.
Source code: https://github.com/sultanxda/android_kernel_oneplus_bacon-3.10
What works:
It boots (woo)
Display
Touchscreen
Modem (no mobile data though)
WiFi
Charger (not from wall outlets though)
Battery percentage/health reporting
Volume keys
Sensors
USB
Assume everything else doesn't work. Here's a fun screenie: http://imgur.com/H1UERfr
Good luck with haxing 3.10!
XDA:DevDB Information
CAF Linux 3.10.40 kernel for Bacon, Kernel for the ONEPLUS ONE
Contributors
Sultanxda
Kernel Special Features: It boots
Version Information
Status: Testing
Created 2015-07-05
Last Updated 2015-07-06
@Sultanxda Awesome work bro now if only the Cyanogen.org devs supported devices like Sony
arm: qcom: Add SONY Shinano platform, msm8974pro family - https://github.com/sonyxperiadev/kernel/commit/193c3345565d0c3a202f8feac62a21842b06e347
http://developer.sonymobile.com/kno...sh-a-linux-kernel-for-aosp-supported-devices/
http://developer.sonymobile.com/kno...evices/how-to-build-and-flash-a-linux-kernel/
http://developer.sonymobile.com/201...ny-presentation-at-embedded-linux-conference/
http://developer.sonymobile.com/201...-xperia-devices-in-sonys-open-device-program/
Awsome work mate. Where can i find the original CAF branch? Somewhere at codeaurora cgit?
Sent from my A0001 using XDA Free mobile app
DerRomtester said:
Awsome work mate. Where can i find the original CAF branch? Somewhere at codeaurora cgit?
Sent from my A0001 using XDA Free mobile app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yep. https://www.codeaurora.org/cgit/quic/la/kernel/msm-3.10/tree/?h=LA.BF.2.1_rb1.39
Sultanxda said:
Yep. https://www.codeaurora.org/cgit/quic/la/kernel/msm-3.10/tree/?h=LA.BF.2.1_rb1.39
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you. I am gonna create a full git history with that + your commits. If anyone wants access to it to push some code feel free to ask.
Gesendet von meinem A0001 mit Tapatalk
any inherent benefits of having linux 3.10 over 3.4?
_ASSASSIN_ said:
any inherent benefits of having linux 3.10 over 3.4?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_3.10
https://github.com/sonyxperiadev/ke...UX_ANDROID_LA.BF64.1.2.1_RB1.05.00.02.019.067
_ASSASSIN_ said:
any inherent benefits of having linux 3.10 over 3.4?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Tons!
One I would love to mess with is Heterogeneous Multi-Processing. Also some of the other upstream scheduler commits. For one, they are what make the N6 a true quad core in that it doesn't use any hotplugging, just CPU C states while maintaining pretty decent battery life. It changes how threading works and how workloads are transferred to other cores. At least this is the main thing I would love to see and mess with. Almost makes me want to get an N6. I love my OPO though.
RenderBroken said:
Tons!
One I would love to mess with is Heterogeneous Multi-Processing. Also some of the other upstream scheduler commits. For one, they are what make the N6 a true quad core in that it doesn't use any hotplugging, just CPU C states while maintaining pretty decent battery life. It changes how threading works and how workloads are transferred to other cores. At least this is the main thing I would love to see and mess with. Almost makes me want to get an N6. I love my OPO though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
possibly collab with @DerRomtester?
_ASSASSIN_ said:
possibly collab with @DerRomtester?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
man, that would be cool but it would be a massive undertaking then you would need a road map for other rom Devs to use to even use the work you have done let alone to even be accepted officially from major Roms out there like CM. This is something I have thought about alot but the work needed to put in doesn't match anything near what I would get out of it. This doesn't mean money necessarily but time, time away from family, etc.
This is still something I will take a look at. I wouldn't mind any input from @DerRomtester at all.
Added to OnePlus One index thread:
[INDEX] OnePlus One Resources Compilation Roll-Up
First I was excited then I read that this is no longer in development and I'm sad now
P.S. I'd love to see a small group of kernel devs gather around and work on this, surely at first it would be buggy, having even less performance than any kernel for our 1+1 but in the end we'll have a sweet little kernel
evronetwork said:
First I was excited then I read that this is no longer in development and I'm sad now
P.S. I'd love to see a small group of kernel devs gather around and work on this, surely at first it would be buggy, having even less performance than any kernel for our 1+1 but in the end we'll have a sweet little kernel
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Pretty sure that most devs would use this as a base if it had the proper driver support as it would provide quite the bump for security
evronetwork said:
First I was excited then I read that this is no longer in development and I'm sad now
P.S. I'd love to see a small group of kernel devs gather around and work on this, surely at first it would be buggy, having even less performance than any kernel for our 1+1 but in the end we'll have a sweet little kernel
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Facts. We need way more collabs man. Unity gets a lot done. I personally know nothing about developing, but I'm a great tester. I'm willing to brick my phone.. Test, bootloop and brick it again lol. Everyone can play a part in the grand scheme of things.
@Sultanxda can you share your kernel with me?
I compiled it but i don't get it booting. You have made some ramdisk changes ? You added an dtb file ?
DerRomtester said:
@Sultanxda can you share your kernel with me?
I compiled it but i don't get it booting. You have made some ramdisk changes ? You added an dtb file ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No ramdisk changes, no missing dtbs. Just ran a mrproper and compiled it exactly as it is on my GitHub, and it boots. Compiled with GCC 4.8 from Google using almost the exact same script I use to compile my 3.4 kernel, with the only change being that the dtb path for the dtbtool is arch/arm/boot/dts/, not arch/arm/boot/ (though you probably already figured that out).
Sultanxda said:
No ramdisk changes, no missing dtbs. Just ran a mrproper and compiled it exactly as it is on my GitHub, and it boots. Compiled with GCC 4.8 from Google using almost the exact same script I use to compile my 3.4 kernel, with the only change being that the dtb path for the dtbtool is arch/arm/boot/dts/, not arch/arm/boot/ (though you probably already figured that out).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you mate. I think i know the problem
_ASSASSIN_ said:
Pretty sure that most devs would use this as a base if it had the proper driver support as it would provide quite the bump for security
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If companies released the drivers we would have 3.10.x, 3.18.x and even 4.2.x kernels(someone would try to do it even if it turned out a failure)
Released drivers also would have better optimised roms and would make a 5 year old device to live forever (new android e.g. android 7? no problem)
OmegaBlaze said:
Facts. We need way more collabs man. Unity gets a lot done. I personally know nothing about developing, but I'm a great tester. I'm willing to brick my phone.. Test, bootloop and brick it again lol. Everyone can play a part in the grand scheme of things.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm the worst kind of programmer, I mean I do own a degree but the programming language was my weakest link, so I can't help and kernel is one of the hardest parts it needs big ..knowledge to do it :silly:
Now lets not go off topic and wish for someone to work on 3.10.x I mean even if it's buggy and a bit unstable it will bring some new stuff and when it gets stable well then the fun will start
RenderBroken said:
Tons!
One I would love to mess with is Heterogeneous Multi-Processing. Also some of the other upstream scheduler commits. For one, they are what make the N6 a true quad core in that it doesn't use any hotplugging, just CPU C states while maintaining pretty decent battery life. It changes how threading works and how workloads are transferred to other cores. At least this is the main thing I would love to see and mess with. Almost makes me want to get an N6. I love my OPO though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wasn't exactly interested in 3.10 until i read yours comment. If this kernel can also make opo work like N6 i.e. running always on quad core mode and still maintain good battery lyf, man i would pray that either opo or cm releases 3.10 kernel.
Sent from OnePlus One
abhibnl said:
I wasn't exactly interested in 3.10 until i read yours comment. If this kernel can also make opo work like N6 i.e. running always on quad core mode and still maintain good battery lyf, man i would pray that either opo or cm releases 3.10 kernel.
Sent from OnePlus One
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This will never happen. From a business perspective, it costs too much for little benefit, and only introduces the potential for more bugs.
However, here is a hint: Bacon's TrustZone firmware does not check metadata when loading firmware images, so you can technically load firmware from any device (ex: you can use Venus firmware from a totally different device).
If you know what you're doing and you have 3 months of your life to burn on this, then it should be possible to get everything working with the LA.BF.2.1_rb1.xx kernel branch.
Sent from my A0001 using XDA Free mobile app
Just heard about Android GO. Is there any thought to building it for Galaxy Nexus? With the frustrations of no root for my g6 I've been playing around with my old Nexus device. I've never built a room before but am more then willing to learn or help.
I also would think this may be a really good thing for our devices, seeing that there has now been Unofficial LineageOS 15.1 builds already being made for First Gen Android One Devices. I would also be willing to learn and test out developments, however I would probably still leave it to the professionals like @Android-Andi, @Ziyan, @nailyk, @osm0sis and @amaces.
I am positive that with a combined effort we all could make our "retro" android device, bang up to date with Oreo Go, which may also help improve speed due to memory improvements that have been made in Oreo Go. I also wouldn't be surprised if one of the mentioned above isn't already in the process of doing this.
typhoonscotland said:
I also would think this may be a really good thing for our devices, seeing that there has now been Unofficial LineageOS 15.1 builds already being made for First Gen Android One Devices. I would also be willing to learn and test out developments, however I would probably still leave it to the professionals like @Android-Andi, @Ziyan, @nailyk, @osm0sis and @amaces.
I am positive that with a combined effort we all could make our "retro" android device, bang up to date with Oreo Go, which may also help improve speed due to memory improvements that have been made in Oreo Go. I also wouldn't be surprised if one of the mentioned above isn't already in the process of doing this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have not time at all (for that device) and am not good enough at kernel tasks.
If someone is able to port HWBinder on our 3.0 kernel I guess being able to help on a few things. If I get some time one day, I will try to backport it from 'my' Sony 3.4 one.
nailyk said:
If someone is able to port HWBinder on our 3.0 kernel I guess being able to help on a few things. If I get some time one day, I will try to backport it from 'my' Sony 3.4 one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Binder and other backports are not the deal breaker for Oreo on K3.0 (see our UA staging trees). The problem is lack of usable (and public) DDK UM blobs, which is much harder, if not impossible to fix. Also, the availability of Go GApps is more important than building a Go ROM.
amaces said:
Binder and other backports are not the deal breaker for Oreo on K3.0 (see our UA staging trees). The problem is lack of usable (and public) DDK UM blobs, which is much harder, if not impossible to fix. Also, the availability of Go GApps is more important than building a Go ROM.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Gapps are not important for me
I though the graphic driver was open source ?
Sorry for noob question, but I do not know the omap world...
I dunno if this would help any of our wonderful developers, however I just seen this "Oreo Low-RAM Property Mod" basically giving Oreo an Android GO style update. If I could build it all myself then I would, however I don't actually know where to even start.