Related
I've been following the development of so-called ROMs for the Vibrant (and other SGS devices), but I have yet to see a single AOSP ROM. Even when Samsung released the original kernel sources for 2.1, there were no AOSP 2.1 ROMs. Why not? Is it because they don't know which BLOBs to pull for insertion or the proper vendor overlays?
Some developers have done great work with SGS kernels (especially supercurio and his Voodoo kernels ... eugene373's tend to always wipe the internal SD card unnecessarily ...). But, a kernel does not a ROM make ... therefore I ask, what is truly missing to build an AOSP ROM. I've gone through the sources, but I don't follow makefiles too well.
I know we have another month or so before Samsung is obligated to release their 2.2 kernel sources, but that should have no impact on 2.1 AOSP ROMs. Therefore, I ask "what is the hold up?" What is missing, and what might I contribute ...
Need 2.2 source code...
2.1 is a dead horse--why bother when 2.2/2.3 are out?
The reason to bother is to at least get AOSP running. Once its on 2.1, it'll be easier to get 2.2 AOSP running on it. But claiming 2.1 is a "dead horse" is the wrong path ... the real question still stands: after 9 months on the market their still are no AOSP ROMs.
MIUI
Now that vibrant 2.2 source is released ... we finally have a REAL AOSP port and my all time favorite from my old HD2 the MIUI.... so keep your heads up and wait for it to get finished.
Get a custom rom. There are so many good devs doing them don't waste your time on AOSP....... until they release the actual source code...... on April 22
sarim.ali said:
Now that vibrant 2.2 source is released ... we finally have a REAL AOSP port and my all time favorite from my old HD2 the MIUI.... so keep your heads up and wait for it to get finished.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Except, the 2.2 source for the Vibrant has not been released. The SGH-T959D that shows Froyo sources on Samsung's site is for the Canadian Fascinate, not the US T-Mobile Vibrant. Samsung has yet to release the 2.2 sources.
oka1 said:
Get a custom rom. There are so many good devs doing them don't waste your time on AOSP....... until they release the actual source code...... on April 22
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Except the so-called "custom ROMs" are just modifications on the stock theme, a replacement kernel and a change of some of the supplied applications.
There is nothing close to a full "custom ROM" such as CyanogenMod or MIUI because we don't have Samsung's sources. What is passing for a "custom ROM" for the Vibrant are just repackaged files. It is akin to the "ROM cooking" that took place for the WinMo phones, not a truly ground-up build from source that is possible with Android.
EDT/Devs4Android has the MIUI build. From Source.
TW has a 2.2.1 in testing.
EDT has a 2.2.1 Beta released.
TW has a 2.3 AOSP in testing. From Source.
EDT has 2.2 AOSP in testing. From Source.
What you want is out there for you.
Watch the forums and reply when a call for Alpha testers is posted.
Hopefully it won't be long before you see a full TW/EDT/Devs4Android collaboration!
I think what the original poster is trying to ask (and I have the same question) is why were there never any real 2.1 AOSP, cyanogen5 for the vibrant. The source for 2.1 has been around for many months. Were some other proprietary bits missing, was the released source code such a mess that it was unbuildable, something else? With those questions in mind, why will things be any different when the 2.2 source comes out?
mattb3 said:
I think what the original poster is trying to ask (and I have the same question) is why were there never any real 2.1 AOSP, cyanogen5 for the vibrant. The source for 2.1 has been around for many months. Were some other proprietary bits missing, was the released source code such a mess that it was unbuildable, something else? With those questions in mind, why will things be any different when the 2.2 source comes out?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, this is more towards what I was getting at. We do not have Samsung's kernel sources for 2.2. And, we do not have a Samsung provided vendor overlay.
When we receive these two pieces, then a true AOSP build will be possible. However, we do have the 2.1 kernel sources, so why wasn't a true AOSP build possible then? What was missing, and can we actually expect Samsung to release the overlay that's needed?
Actually, that's true. I know it was old but why didn't anyone build a 2.1 cyanogen or aosp rom? (Not to say its easy.)
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
A noob question, kindly can someone explain what is the vendor overlay stuff?
Many thanks!
Where have you been?
rpcameron said:
I've been following the development of so-called ROMs for the Vibrant (and other SGS devices), but I have yet to see a single AOSP ROM. Even when Samsung released the original kernel sources for 2.1, there were no AOSP 2.1 ROMs. Why not? Is it because they don't know which BLOBs to pull for insertion or the proper vendor overlays?
Some developers have done great work with SGS kernels (especially supercurio and his Voodoo kernels ... eugene373's tend to always wipe the internal SD card unnecessarily ...). But, a kernel does not a ROM make ... therefore I ask, what is truly missing to build an AOSP ROM. I've gone through the sources, but I don't follow makefiles too well.
I know we have another month or so before Samsung is obligated to release their 2.2 kernel sources, but that should have no impact on 2.1 AOSP ROMs. Therefore, I ask "what is the hold up?" What is missing, and what might I contribute ...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Dude theres been a true AOSP ROM for the Vibrant since like december and thats CM 6.1
Im running it now
rpcameron said:
I've been following the development of so-called ROMs for the Vibrant (and other SGS devices), but I have yet to see a single AOSP ROM. Even when Samsung released the original kernel sources for 2.1, there were no AOSP 2.1 ROMs. Why not? Is it because they don't know which BLOBs to pull for insertion or the proper vendor overlays?
Some developers have done great work with SGS kernels (especially supercurio and his Voodoo kernels ... eugene373's tend to always wipe the internal SD card unnecessarily ...). But, a kernel does not a ROM make ... therefore I ask, what is truly missing to build an AOSP ROM. I've gone through the sources, but I don't follow makefiles too well.
I know we have another month or so before Samsung is obligated to release their 2.2 kernel sources, but that should have no impact on 2.1 AOSP ROMs. Therefore, I ask "what is the hold up?" What is missing, and what might I contribute ...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For probably the same reason that many phones with non AOSP firmware running 1.5/1.6 did not bother with AOSP 1.5/1.6 when they were released around the time 2.1 source hit. Why bother developing at all for what is essentially an "out of date" OS.
The only people it seems who actively continue to develop for existing (as opposed to new) firmware are manufacturers and carriers. This stupidity should be left to the manufacturers who still do this.
One of the larger snags way back then (sits in his rocking chair on the porch) was a lack of understanding of the phones proprietary aspects and how to work around them. But we have a fairly clear understanding of Samsung's boot process now, and RFS can now easily be turned into a distant memory.
I would wager a guess that the apathy towards 2.1 will not repeat itself once we have 2.2 source widely available and the low level similarities between 2.2 and 2.3 should have Gingerbread being more than the experiment it currently is. It's been barely more than a week since Eugene's little present manifested and there are already proper and stable kernels available.
Keep in mind that the devs we do have, have done a phenomenal job of cleaning up, speeding up, and drastically enhancing our existing 2.2 release. And perhaps to the point where many will not really care, though I know many would still like to see CyanogenMod6/7 properly on this phone.
Master&Slave™ said:
Dude theres been a true AOSP ROM for the Vibrant since like december and thats CM 6.1
Im running it now
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Um, that's not quite true. The CyanogenMod.com website lists 0 files available for download for either experimental or stable files. The CM6.1 you must be running is not a true CM build.
Also, CM is not AOSP, but rather AOSP with modifications.
phrozenflame said:
A noob question, kindly can someone explain what is the vendor overlay stuff?
Many thanks!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The vendor overlay tells the AOSP build system which proprietary files are needed from the device that are not available in source form. This includes things like GPS and video drivers, baseband firmware for wireless radios, &c.
hi everybody !
a month age i decided to compile a new rom for my Galaxy S absolutely from AOSP source ( branch 2.2.1_r1 ) after some compile-time problem and many painful steps to resolve ,eventually the rom successfully built and can boot it up flawlessly on emulator.
i create a nandroid backup of current rom and installed the compiled one. but i am facing new problem :
1- the phone successfully boots but after short while screen began
flicking several time and the phone go in deep sleep and never wakeup
( power button or menu button does not do any thing )
2- touch screen works only for some second that I can unlock the
phone
3- there is no network available
4- I have downloaded samsung opesource package for GT-I9000. it
contains a folder named 'platform' but when i merge these files to
AOSP , the compile process stops and fails again. if there any one can
help me which files from samsung source should i merge and how ? if
you now the answer and dont have spare time then some internet link or
online document is really useful .i have no problem studding and
reading and searching . reaching to target is my only hope .
I am really disappointed why there is not a good and complete step2step tutorial to compile an AOSP rom for galaxy s (GT-I9000) !!
such docs is available for phones like dell streak , desire , dream , magic , .... . i really want to to active these aspect on XDA forum and with help of all you ( mods and masters ) try to create such tutorial that any one in world can use to refer . i think XDA is the only reference on net to collect and create such help and document. please help me and leave PM or comment to agree ot disagree and from where can i start ?!! thank in advanced .
edit :
there is a google groups post that i send my question in Android-platform . if you prefer please join this group and active that post to ask any question related to 'galaxy s compile from source ' .
post located at http://groups.google.com/group/android-platform/browse_thread/thread/da5d6f18f3bd3c9b
A few of Sony Ericsson's newest devices are queued up to get CyanogenMod Custom ROM. Thanks to recent code submitted by Diogo Ferreira, the bits needed to bring my favorite custom ROM to three smartphones in the Xperia family:
- Xperia Play: r.cyanogenmod.com/#change,7126
- Xperia Neo: r.cyanogenmod.com/#change,7128
- Xperia Arc: r.cyanogenmod.com/#change,7127
Currently the code to add these phones to the CyanogenMod family is awaiting approval to be merged into the CyanogenMod repository. Once that's done we can expect nightly builds to follow not long after.
From that point it's just a matter of time before Release Candidates and a Final Build is available.
Source: http://r.cyanogenmod.com/#q,status:open,n,z
Via: http://pocketnow.com/android/sony-xperia-play-neo-and-arch-getting-cyanogenmod-custom-rom
Woohoo! I am getting a bit sick of my SE ROM, I want a Cyanogen!
very nice, i wasn't expecting official nightlies for our play's
Great!!!!!!!!!
Official CM7 on my Xperia Play is Very very Great
Come on!!!!!!!!
I'd like to hear word from the FreeXperia team. Are they maintaining CM7 officially?
At any rate, I already ROM Manager ready for action ^^
This is only for plays that are bootloader unlockable right? Any progress on unlocking the bootloader on simlocked phones?
RacecarBMW said:
This is only for plays that are bootloader unlockable right? Any progress on unlocking the bootloader on simlocked phones?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We're making progress on CDMA phones.
The problem is that simlocked phones don't have RCK_H key so there's nothing to crack the unlock key from. But as said, I'll check it, I have some people willing to test.
Looks as though it has now been merged. Really looking forward 2 flashing nightlies. Cyanogen best mod by a looooooonnnnggggg stretch.
And just in time so that Verizon users can join the party
Hi, I am Diogo Ferreira (submitter of these patches)
I think you'd be happy to know that they are now already merged and in a buildable state with nightlies following soon.
This is not an alternative to FreeXperia work, it is FreeXperia work. We've been all working together to make this happen.
I'd be happy to answer questions you might have.
deovferreira said:
Hi, I am Diogo Ferreira (submitter of these patches)
I think you'd be happy to know that they are now already merged and in a buildable state with nightlies following soon.
This is not an alternative to FreeXperia work, it is FreeXperia work. We've been all working together to make this happen.
I'd be happy to answer questions you might have.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi Diogo. Glad to hear from you. Does this mean Xperias will be listed on CM homepage under supported devices, and will get official forum's section?
Given that most of the features worked already in the betas (great job by the FX folks), the main question for the Play resides on the camera. What's the status on that?
And for those people who have ROM Manager Premium, will the nightlies come through it as well?
No ETAS on camera. It will be done when it's done but we're looking into it.
As for nightlies, they should be available soon.
deovferreira, is the team making an official kernel as well to compliment the nightly builds? If we are using ROM Manager, then CWM Recovery is essential, and it would be great to have a kernel that had this built in, like the FreeXperia's team does now.
Also, will the ROM be generic for all users? I had quite a few issues with the radio yesterday on my CDMA Play when I tried FreeXperia's latest build. I just wanted to make sure that builds would support all versions of the play, not just the R800i.
Mills00013 said:
deovferreira, is the team making an official kernel as well to compliment the nightly builds? If we are using ROM Manager, then CWM Recovery is essential, and it would be great to have a kernel that had this built in, like the FreeXperia's team does now.
Also, will the ROM be generic for all users? I had quite a few issues with the radio yesterday on my CDMA Play when I tried FreeXperia's latest build. I just wanted to make sure that builds would support all versions of the play, not just the R800i.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What is on CM today is on par with what we did for FreeXperia, the kernel has a builtin recovery. You'll see instructions on this soon when nightlies start to hit.
As for CDMA, I am not aware what the differences are. I support a CDMA device (desire-cdma) but it is a PITA since I have no real way to test. What would be good is if someone steps up and tried to maintain a play-cdma port, I imagine the differences would be fairly minimal.
deovferreira said:
What is on CM today is on par with what we did for FreeXperia, the kernel has a builtin recovery. You'll see instructions on this soon when nightlies start to hit.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Awesome. The only reason I asked is because of how its different from other devices. The kernel always has to be flashed with fastboot. So I just didn't know how the updates would work or anything like that. I assume we just flash one to start the process and go downhill from there.
deovferreira said:
As for CDMA, I am not aware what the differences are. I support a CDMA device (desire-cdma) but it is a PITA since I have no real way to test. What would be good is if someone steps up and tried to maintain a play-cdma port, I imagine the differences would be fairly minimal.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree completely. It appears that the kernel was working fine, there is just something in the CM build that was preventing the radio from working correctly. Logcat was telling me that it detected a CDMA mode and enabled it but then the phone module would crash. It was late when I started looking into it though and didn't do a lot of research, but I imagine that someone has encountered this with a CDMA port from a GSM cousin before. I'll do some more investigation this evening.
The boot will always have to be flashed separately using fastboot due to the way the sony ericsson bootloaders transforms the boot image on flashing. System updates will be done using the recovery, as usual. At some point the kernel and system may get out of sync, the symptom would be wifi failing to enable, at which point people would have to flash a new kernel.
As for CDMA, the RIL libraries should be different as should some settings in build.prop.
Awesome. I'll see what I can do this evening, and maybe even pump out a working build from the source for CDMA users.
Guys, stay calm.
this is FreeXperia CM7 "just" as official CM
So that is what you all wanted.
We worked over some time now with Diogo, all of us 3 ( Diogo, jerpela and me) have commited our changes, put them together and worked together.
All will be good See it as a surprise
I'm working for over 1 month now everyday on camera support. For now nothing new, but new knowledge
currently i'm looking into camera for new 4.x Firmware release, maybe SE changed something in a good way for us...
Best Regards
Bin4ry
Team FreeXperia
Ok I just read the thread and maybe I missed it, my xperia play is from Rogers. Will I be able to install cm 7?
Sent from my Play, with XDA Premium.
In going through our Neo forum I have noticed that we have excellent ROM builders and Modders but we lack consistent kernel developers (No offence to our current kernel Devs). This thread is to integrate all the talented kernel builders out there including existing ones who have knowledge in modding kernel from source I.E.
*Adding Governors
*UV/OC
etc...
Maybe a team could be established if needs be. If you are interested please reply in this thread with ideas and let's make our Neo even more awesome
Thanks
I can help though i have a neo L
The aim is to build various kernels for various needs
Sent from my Neo V using xda premium
There is a threas in Q&A about dual booting. maybe this could be a project to work on.
I am not sure of the advatages of it, but it may encourage more devs to get involved if there is a project to work on, not just "lets make as many kernels as we can".
However, I look forward to seeing the outcome of this, and good luck the kernel builders
actually learning how to build one
I also want IN I have Neo L and Linux Mint
I'm no developer, but kamarush before started building a 3.x kernel and got it into the debug stage, however had to sell off his device, so I think he stopped working on it.
Edit: just checked again, he's still working on it, he's one dedicated dev.
Edit 2: Kamarush got the 3.x kernel booting :victory:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=31313588&postcount=995
Tapatalked from my Xperia Neo V
OK, so here's the thing... I'm kind of new in the Android acknowledgement, so I hope that here will be the place where I will get my answers. So here's what I know...
At first I didn't know that Android was Java-based, using a modified Linux kernel which we all know it's C-based (entirely). After a while, I found that there were different firmwares (ROMs) from the original ones, called Stock ones and also different kernels. After reading lots of info about how things actually are, I've decided to root my stock and then I moved to a custom MIUI for my SGSII with a JB implementation. At first it was great, but I had some issues which left me disappointed. Then I moved on to the official MIUI (China - English one). Things got better after I got used to it. The major bugs disappeared, only small ones left and a few crashes, but in time most of them got fixed. Later it crossed my mind, "Why are there so many different kernels and which is the best one for my phone or ROM to be precise?" Well this is where I need your help. I've read some topics that siyah kernel is probably the best kernel, which fits the MIUI rom. The pointing of concrete kernels isn't the kind of answer I was actually searching for. To be honest, I need answers to questions like:
How many kernels are there ?
Which ones are safe ? (I've read that there are badly written ones, so yeah, it needs to be asked)
Statistically, which is the best kernel and is it for the MIUI rom ?
How can I tell that it's suitable for the MIUI rom ? (Since I've read that not all are)
What are the risks of changing the kernel?
How can you test the kernel's behaviour, an app which makes statistics in time or some other methods ?
Believe me, as annoying this topic might seem, lots of us (the newbie users) are burning up the google servers, just to find these answers. I'm really hoping for a reply spam with answers (if possible , spare the trolling ones). Thanks for reading my annoying topic, anyway
Since most of the source is available, basically anyone can build their own kernel at home, so it is hard to tell how many kernels are there.
what isn`t available as open source are most of the OEM-specific drivers. Samsung, for one, doesn`t make most of the drivers' source publicly available, so kernel developers have to make a binary kernel around the binary drivers and literally pray their work well together.
Siyah is safe, but I prefer the stock kernel (I like the stock ROM... go figure). The stock kernel is the only one that is sure to work properly with all the hardware in the phone, because it is the only built from sources for the drivers as well (read my previous paragraph).
Which ones are safe (other than stock and Siyah): you gotta try them for yourself, read other users' remarks and feedbacks, and so on.
Risks:
Very low. As long as the bootloader is good, if the kernel totally malfunctions, just reboot in download mode and flash something else.
Some app may work very well in one kernel and bomb in another. It may crash in some kernels. It is very empyrical.
The problem is that custom kernels don't undergo the same type of quality testing as stock kernels. Developers have very limited resources to do that, and some developers are more interested in having a short time-to-market than a quality product (well, many large corporations act like that as well). At the end of the day we - power users - are the beta testing and quality assurance teams for the kernel developers.
Hi! This is maybe a general dev question, but I'd like to get an answer anyway:
what is exactly the link between an Android release and the kernel it works upon?
I noticed most recent releases use 3.0+ Linux kernels, and others (like the DSCs) use the Phoenix Universal Kernel, which is based on a 2.6.35... So I wonder: is ICS/JB in any way dependant on "newer" kernels?
I understand the answer must be closer to "no", since the pre-alpha build also uses a fork of the PUK, but the fact that it uses a *different version* makes me wonder how much work does it take to get a kernel ready for a newer release, and most importantly... why?
Thanks a lot! Total n00b here, but eager to know more.
Newer kernel not required at least for ICS.
All GB/ICS kernels are based on this kernel (and it's a Dell's lie about using same sources for 407 release as SoD was fixed there without switching timer source):
http://opensource.dell.com/releases/streak/4.05_and_4.07/
kibuuka successfully applied kgsl/genlock patch and it's the only thing actually needed for ICS.
List (a bit old) of changes in Phoenix kernel and later derivatives:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=25291276&postcount=3812