Related
It may be a typo in the build.prop but it says our processor is armv7 rev2.. Does anyone know if this is actually what's under the hood? I'd be pretty bummed
Pretty sure the processor is based on Arm Cortex A8 so it's last generation but dual core. The SGSII is based on Arm Cortex A9. Not sure how this relates to Armv7 though.
lokhor said:
Pretty sure the processor is based on Arm Cortex A8 so it's last generation but dual core. The SGSII is based on Arm Cortex A9. Not sure how this relates to Armv7 though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was under the same impression but I'm still curious about the build.prop... idk probly just a screw up
From here:
CPU:
Architecture: ARM v7
ARM core: ARM Cortex-A9
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Looks like there are 2 different ones. One for the chipset, one for the cores themselves. Chipset is ARM v7, Cores are A9
Also, I have no clue WTF any of this means. Google + 30 seconds = Some possibly useful info.
Edit: Okies, after doing some looking: There's no v8, only v7. The Cortex A9 is a subcategory of that, like different versions of it. Like we have gingerbread, 2.3. You can have subcategories of 2.3.3, 2.3.4, etc, which are all patches with improvements. So the CPU runs on ARM v7-A9, if that makes more sense...
Of course, this is how the processor is built, so it's not like it can be "Patched" to the newer versions when they come out... So that's just an example, to make it easier to understand.
The Scorpion CPU is a modified Cortex A8. ALL newer Cortex Ax CPUs are based on the ARMv7 instruction set architecture (ISA.)
Summary:
CPU is based on ARM's ARMv7 instruction set architecture intellectual property, which is branded Cortex A8. (Newer TI OMAP, and the Exynos are Cortex A9, basically unmodified, but are *still* using the ARMv7 ISA.)
Ergo, ARMv7 --> instruction set architecture, Cortex A8 --> configuration/branding.
APOLAUF said:
The Scorpion CPU is a modified Cortex A8. ALL newer Cortex Ax CPUs are based on the ARMv7 instruction set architecture (ISA.)
Summary:
CPU is based on ARM's ARMv7 instruction set architecture intellectual property, which is branded Cortex A8. (Newer TI OMAP, and the Exynos are Cortex A9, basically unmodified, but are *still* using the ARMv7 ISA.)
Ergo, ARMv7 --> instruction set architecture, Cortex A8 --> configuration/branding.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah hah. Thankyou. Someone who knows what they're talking about, and isn't just pulling stuff out of their search engine.
BlaydeX15 said:
Ah hah. Thankyou. Someone who knows what they're talking about, and isn't just pulling stuff out of their search engine.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Glad to help. I will be starting as junior faculty at the University of Louisville, and I'm teaching microprocessor design, so I hope I can remember all this! ARM definitely has made quite a salad of their branding. For instance, the classic ARM9 CPU is based on ARMv5, while the ARM7 is based on ARMv4 (if I'm not mistaken - I have a few of the dev boards lying around somewhere... there were actually variants of the 7 and the 9 that were both under v4 and v5 ISAs). The ARM11 (which was found in the newer 400MHz+ pocket PCs and smartphones of old) used the ARMv6 architecture, and all Cortex use ARMv7. What a mess! I guess that's what happens when you just create CPU core intellectual property, without manufacturing a single chip.
APOLAUF said:
Glad to help. I will be starting as junior faculty at the University of Louisville, and I'm teaching microprocessor design, so I hope I can remember all this! ARM definitely has made quite a salad of their branding. For instance, the classic ARM9 CPU is based on ARMv5, while the ARM7 is based on ARMv4 (if I'm not mistaken - I have a few of the dev boards lying around somewhere... there were actually variants of the 7 and the 9 that were both under v4 and v5 ISAs). The ARM11 (which was found in the newer 400MHz+ pocket PCs and smartphones of old) used the ARMv6 architecture, and all Cortex use ARMv7. What a mess! I guess that's what happens when you just create CPU core intellectual property, without manufacturing a single chip.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've got an iPaq sitting here...I didn't even realize it was sitting here until you said ARM11 and then I looked down in back of my keyboard, saw that and a giant whooshing sounded flew through my head and reminded me that after reading all of your posts and thinking to myself "this guy really knows his stuff...wow, I doubt I could ever know all of that stuff" that, in fact, I already did in a previous life....lol.
But as you already stated (in different words) "Knowing" is the easy part, remembering is the hard part and to that end you have one upped me.
...wow, bizarre feeling, lol, thanks...
the scorpion core is not a modified a8 it is qualcomms own design that uses the armv7 instruction set
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA Premium App
stimpyshaun said:
the scorpion core is not a modified a8 it is qualcomms own design that uses the armv7 instruction set
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is a modified ARM8 ISA CPU that uses the ARMv7 instruction set, Cortex is a branding.
...that is correct, and if it isn't swap a couple acronyms and numbers around and it will be.
if you r curious here are some links talking about how the scorpion core is similar and different from both a8 and a9
http://www.qualcomm.com/documents/files/linley-report-dual-core-snapdragon.pdf
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3632/anands-google-nexus-one-review/8
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4144/...gra-2-review-the-first-dual-core-smartphone/4
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3632/anands-google-nexus-one-review/9
stimpyshaun said:
the scorpion core is not a modified a8 it is qualcomms own design that uses the armv7 instruction set
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are correct in that the Scorpion cannot be technically branded as an A8. Qualcomm licenses the ARMv7 ISA and basic core design (which ARM called Cortex A8) (when we implement these in FPGA, we call them softcores - kinda kinky. ). Qualcomm, when designing their initial Snapdragon, essentially gave a checklist to ARM for the reference design that they wanted their IP library to use.
For instance, Intel marketed the PXA 255 and PXA 270-series CPUs. (HTC PPC 6700 and Dell Axims, anyone? ). Despite being a CPU innovator in the desktop realm, the cores were still based on ARM reference designs - Intel's mobile division selected the reference they wanted, added MMX, etc., and then went to fab with it. By the same token, the Scorpion was based on ARMv7 ISA, which in its initial incarnation, as used by Qualcomm, was the Cortex A8. What came out of that is, logically, different, but related enough, the same way the PXAs were ARM11 reference desgins (ARMv6.) Qualcomm added the NEON instruction set, as well as out-of-order execution, for example, something the other Cortex CPUs didn't have (this may have changed with the A9), in order to increase data and instruction-level parallelism. They also added the ability to perform fine-grain CPU clock frequency and voltage throttling, much more so than in the stock A8 reference.
I guess in the long run, if they don't update their references to an A9 IP library variant, or perhaps something newer down the road, the Scorpion will start lagging behind the competition rather significantly. Not that I'm complaining at the moment, I love my 3vo's performance as it is.
http://www.qualcomm.com/documents/files/linley-report-dual-core-snapdragon.pdf
here it says qualcomm does not use arms cortex reference designs but infact designed its own
if it is wrong than blame qualcomm... if I am misunderstanding it please explain
stimpyshaun said:
http://www.qualcomm.com/documents/files/linley-report-dual-core-snapdragon.pdf
here it says qualcomm does not use arms cortex reference designs but infact designed its own
if it is wrong than blame qualcomm... if I am misunderstanding it please explain
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Boy, they certainly make it sound that way! My guess is that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. That they don't use the reference design is clear - the end-product isn't the same product that is the core design in the Cortex/v7 spec. However, I don't think that Qualcomm has the capital and the resources to do a full-scale, ground-up build of a CPU. Note that even Intel didn't do this (!) when they entered (and then promptly exited) the mobile CPU-building business.
The Qualcomm processor design team most-likely chooses attributes and then custom-designs additional features and configurations, and Qc does have the fabs to produce the silicon to state-of-the-art, or (state-of-the-art - 1) process technologies, as is clear from their stated transistor design (with a certain leakage factor) and feature size (45nm - keeping in mind that Samsung has this down to 32nm (you might want to check me on that, this may be a lie )).
So, let me restate my original opinion - I value your inputs, and this document certainly does its best to make the CPU look unique in the market. My understanding is that a certain core of the IP library is still present in the A8 format from ARM. It's entirely possible that none of the original architecture was kept in its native forms - design, routing, and layout might all be different, but I think ultimately, the CPU finds its roots in part of the original A8 design. To simply use the ISA without *any* reference to the original A8, I think, is beyond Qualcomm's capabilities, at least at present.
I suppose a reasonable example may be seen in the car world. Take the Lexus ES series vs. the Toyota Camry (just to name a plain-jane, basic example that most people would know.) The ES looks, performs, and runs differently. It has different features, a different pricetag, and many different interior and even engine-bay features (and probably a larger engine.) But ultimately, it is just an altered Camry. The extent of the alterations here is the question (and bringing an analog to an ISA into the automotive domain is tricky - maybe the use of an engine and 4 wheels? ). Anyway, perhaps only Qualcomm knows the answer, but well done sir, in bringing an in-depth discussion to the table.
To put this into layman's terms:
You can mostly think of the term "architecture" as being a language that the CPU speaks, and the software must therefore be written in that language (or as programmers refer to it, being compiled into that language.) Android apps speak java bytecode to the dalvik engine, which then translates and speaks ARMv7 to the CPU. Different phones can run on different architectures and still have the apps be compatible because the dalvik engine can be compiled for each different architecture.
Now, the "core" in this sense is the specific implementation of that architecture. The easiest analogy to that I can think of, is that intel and AMD CPU's both use the x86 architecture, but their implementations are way different. They are designed far different from one another, but in the end they speak the same language more or less.
There are variations to the ARM "language" which is indicated by the revision number (ARMv7) just as there are variations to the x86 "language." For example, you have x86 32-bit and you have x86 64-bit, and then there are extensions to x86 such as SSE, 3dnow, etc. It's a little more complicated than that, but that's the general idea.
Hey guys,
When I fire up SetCPU, under CPU information it says I have an ARMv7 Processor rev 1 (v7l).
Infact, each and every system information tool I've run on my phone keeps telling me the same thing.
These tools also keep telling me I have 1 processor core. Not 2. Got me really worried until the app "SystemPanel" showed me the activity of 2 CPU cores.
PHEW!!! Doesn't this phone have an ARM Cortex-A9 proccessor?
What do you guys see?
funeralcrows said:
Hey guys,
When I fire up SetCPU, under CPU information it says I have an ARMv7 Processor rev 1 (v7l). Infact, each and every system information tool I've run on my phone keeps telling me the same thing. "SystemPanel" is the only app that showed me 2 CPU cores activity. Doesn't this phone have an ARM Cortex-A9 proccessor?
What do you guys see?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Cortex-A9 is a ARMv7 chip. See here
Wow, my ass is officially cool now. Thanks a lot man =D
How donkey kong of me.
if you want to compare it to intel processors, saying that it's ARMv7 is like saying it's a Sandy Bridge processor. Saying it's a Cortex A9 is like saying it's an i5(as opposed to an i3 or an i7).
What is the EXACT FULL Brand name of the processor?
My phone also shows the processor as : ARMv7 Processor rev 1 (v71)
This page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ARM_microprocessor_cores shows there are several sub classifications of ARMv7......so what exactly is the FULL brand name of this Processor? Is it really dual core? And is it good? Where does it stand when compared to Tegra and Exynos?
It's Samsung Exynos 4210 dual core
Doing a bit of enquiry, I found that both Exynos 4210 and Tegra 2 are SOCs (System-on-a-chip). These chips are jack of all trades, and amalgamate the ARM processor, GPU, anamnesis controllers and alien interfaces into a distinct chip. All SGS II phones with model number GT-i9100 have the Exynos 4210 and the model number GT-i9103 has the Tegra 2. Correct me if I'm wrong.
smaskell said:
if you want to compare it to intel processors, saying that it's ARMv7 is like saying it's a Sandy Bridge processor. Saying it's a Cortex A9 is like saying it's an i5(as opposed to an i3 or an i7).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No ARMv7 is the instruction set, that is different from Sandy bridge which is a cpu architecture. So sandy bridge and cortex A9 are more on the same level but not exactly the same. And i5 is similar to a specific version of Exonys, but I think there only is one version
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk
Has samsung released drivers for samsung galaxy ace GT-S5830i? As all of us know....we have a different GPU than the normal GT-S5830......i have heard that our GPU is better than the former ace'?
Any help about this would be appreciated
if this is same as SGY (which it is) then it may not have a dedicated GPU..
As far as i know the gpu is not entirely like galaxy y.Our drivers are different..I think broadcom has to release it..
Sent from my GT-S5830i
andy.acei said:
As far as i know the gpu is not entirely like galaxy y.Our drivers are different..I think broadcom has to release it..
Sent from my GT-S5830i
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
if there is gpu then there is driver for it in kernel sources and blobs in firmwares
http://opensource.samsung.com/index.jsp;jsessionid=4127BB81614787358080E5026BEBE124 can any body tell me what is this then?
if u search for our device there.....it shows some kernel and other files......are these the drivers we are looking for?
Androidnow said:
http://opensource.samsung.com/index.jsp;jsessionid=4127BB81614787358080E5026BEBE124 can any body tell me what is this then?
if u search for our device there.....it shows some kernel and other files......are these the drivers we are looking for?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Those are only incomplete kernel sources that no one got ever to boot without source modifications.
The GT-S5830i the phone uses CPU for graphic rendering and it does not have a GPU and uses 90%(with the exception of the display RAM, internal memory) of the same hardware as Galaxy Y - proof? you can boot Y's ROM's on 5830i and vice versa.
Androidnow said:
Has samsung released drivers for samsung galaxy ace GT-S5830i? As all of us know....we have a different GPU than the normal GT-S5830......i have heard that our GPU is better than the former ace'?
Any help about this would be appreciated
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You heard wrong. The i model uses a Samsung CPU that's faster than 5830's, but because its used as a GPU replacement too the speed difference is minor
tomsons26 said:
Those are only incomplete kernel sources that no one got ever to boot without source modifications.
The GT-S5830i the phone uses CPU for graphic rendering and it does not have a GPU and uses 90%(with the exception of the display RAM, internal memory) of the same hardware as Galaxy Y - proof? you can boot Y's ROM's on 5830i and vice versa.
You heard wrong. The i model uses a Samsung CPU that's faster than 5830's, but because its used as a GPU replacement too the speed difference is minor
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then whats broadcom videocore 4 thing?
Sent from my GT-S5830i using Tapatalk 2
Androidnow said:
Then whats broadcom videocore 4 thing?
Sent from my GT-S5830i using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is no seperate gpu. This Broadcom Videocore 4 variant has been added into cpu itself so that cpu can perform graphical calculations.
Sent from my GT-S5830 using Tapatalk 2
Then why on earth samsung had to name it Ace....it could have been galaxy Y plus or advance
Sent from my GT-S5830i using Tapatalk 2
Androidnow said:
Then why on earth samsung had to name it Ace....it could have been galaxy Y plus or advance
Sent from my GT-S5830i using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol...ask Samsung
Sent from the year 3000 using a SGA where sheep's are not present.
IF the Ace "i" has the same hardware as the SGY then......
CPU = Broadcom BCM21553 ARM11 832 MHz processor, ARMv6
CPU Data sheet = http://www.datasheetarchive.com/BCM2155*-datasheet.html
GPU = Broadcom BCM2763 VideoCore IV LPDDR2 128MB
GPU Data sheet = http://www.datasheetarchive.com/Bcm2763*-datasheet.html
According to Broadcom the processor/gpu is capable of encoding and decoding at full 1080p resolution.
I found this website of the SGY being overclocked to 900mhz.... he/she also supplies the kernel that he/she modified....if its any use to us.
http://advanced-droid.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/galaxy-y-s5360-overclock-900mhz.html
[email protected] said:
IF the Ace "i" has the same hardware as the SGY then......
CPU = Broadcom BCM21553 ARM11 832 MHz processor, ARMv6
CPU Data sheet = http://www.datasheetarchive.com/BCM2155*-datasheet.html
GPU = Broadcom BCM2763 VideoCore IV LPDDR2 128MB
GPU Data sheet = http://www.datasheetarchive.com/Bcm2763*-datasheet.html
According to Broadcom the processor/gpu is capable of encoding and decoding at full 1080p resolution.
I found this website of the SGY being overclocked to 900mhz.... he/she also supplies the kernel that he/she modified....if its any use to us.
http://advanced-droid.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/galaxy-y-s5360-overclock-900mhz.html
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
BCM2763? Nope
The i model and Galaxy Y has Broadcom VideoCore IV HW there is not much info what is it.
And interesting fact that's useful for gaming on these phones is that it supports only OpenGL ES 1.1, just as any software based GPU, because higher OpenGL ES version is not possible without a GPU.
OpenGL ES 1.1 was used back in Android 1.6 Donut days in 2009/early 2010
The original Ace has Adreno 200 which supports OpenGL ES 2.0 and is used in the cheap version of Xperia Play and a lot of other smartphones even today
OpenGL ES 1.1 VS OpenGL ES 2.0 is the same like DirectX 7 VS DirectX 9c
Samsung like " oh my gawd, we have no more qualcom processor left to put in the SGA"
"This broadcoms thinggy looks nice"
*puts the processor into SGA*
"This my friend, no longer just a galaxy ace, it is galaxy ace with an 'I'.
*sells SGA*
—-----—-----—------—----—----—
To think back that SAMSUNG actually markets/advertise galaxy ace of having a powerfull qualcomm cpu, i wonder how the ace with i are marketed
Sent from my GT-S5830 using XDA
chekuhakim said:
Samsung like " oh my gawd, we have no more qualcom processor left to put in the SGA"
"This broadcoms thinggy looks nice"
*puts the processor into SGA*
"This my friend, no longer just a galaxy ace, it is galaxy ace with an 'I'.
*sells SGA*
—-----—-----—------—----—----—
To think back that SAMSUNG actually markets/advertise galaxy ace of having a powerfull qualcomm cpu, i wonder how the ace with i are marketed
Sent from my GT-S5830 using XDA
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah Qualcomm stopped supporting and manufacturing ARMv6 chipsets in the end of 2011 so Samsung needed a replacement.
Maybe this is the reason my friend's new galaxy ace is on GB firmware not froyo.
It is quite a weird because she doesnt know how to use kies or odin.
Sent from my GT-S5830notI using XDA
The SGY and the SGAi does not have a separate GPU chip.
Instead it has a Broadcom BCM21553 multimedia baseband processor, that not only has an integrated ARM11 processor running at 832mhz, but also a separate GPU within the same architecture. The same as the Qualcomm msm7227 and Adreno 200 chip.
While Qualcom chips are classed as "system-on-a-chip". The one chip die that handles the processing, graphics processing, usb interface, camera sound.
The Broadcom classes its chip as a '3G phone-on-a-chip'. Im assuming, reading the literature, that this chip takes care of the Processing, Graphics, 2G, 3G data connection and voice data........ although it doesn't mention anything about usb interfaces ect.
It also dose mention that it supports OpenGL 2.0
info from here
http://www.broadcom.com/products/Cellular/3G-Baseband-Processors/BCM21553
and here
http://www.broadcom.com/products/Mobile-Multimedia/Mobile-Multimedia-Processors/BCM2763
VideoCore Wiki link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VideoCore
Video Core Broadcom link
http://www.broadcom.com/products/technology/mobmm_videocore.php
[email protected] said:
The SGY and the SGAi does not have a separate GPU chip.
Instead it has a Broadcom BCM21553 multimedia baseband processor, that not only has an integrated ARM11 processor running at 832mhz, but also a separate GPU within the same architecture. The same as the Qualcomm msm7227 and Adreno 200 chip.
While Qualcom chips are classed as "system-on-a-chip". The one chip die that handles the processing, graphics processing, usb interface, camera sound.
The Broadcom classes its chip as a '3G phone-on-a-chip'. Im assuming, reading the literature, that this chip takes care of the Processing, Graphics, 2G, 3G data connection and voice data........ although it doesn't mention anything about usb interfaces ect.
It also dose mention that it supports OpenGL 2.0
info from here
http://www.broadcom.com/products/Cellular/3G-Baseband-Processors/BCM21553
and here
http://www.broadcom.com/products/Mobile-Multimedia/Mobile-Multimedia-Processors/BCM2763
VideoCore Wiki link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VideoCore
Video Core Broadcom link
http://www.broadcom.com/products/technology/mobmm_videocore.php
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then why somehow benchmarks and system informations say that its extreamly crappy if its capable of 1080p video?
http://www.glbenchmark.com/compare....30i Galaxy Ace&D2=Samsung GT-S5830 Galaxy Ace
Look at GL_EXTENSIONS it doesn't even support something as old as cube maps that were introduced in 1996 or tiled rendering or paletted textures and the max texure resolution is 2048.
So correction its DirectX 6.1 VS DirectX 9c. :laugh:
According to this website it does support OpenGL ES 2.0 so i was wrong about that.
tomsons26 said:
Then why somehow benchmarks and system informations say that its extreamly crappy if its capable of 1080p video?
http://www.glbenchmark.com/compare....30i Galaxy Ace&D2=Samsung GT-S5830 Galaxy Ace
Look at GL_EXTENSIONS it doesn't even support something as old as cube maps that were introduced in 1996 or tiled rendering or paletted textures and the max texure resolution is 2048.
So correction its DirectX 6.1 VS DirectX 9c. :laugh:
According to this website it does support OpenGL ES 2.0 so i was wrong about that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There must be some code missing from the kernel limiting the capabilities if the chip. Damn Samsung. Which is why we don't have a complete kernel to compile.
Imagine if we had a "fully working" kernel....... It would compete with their more expensive products.
Here is an article and Youtube video I've found showing the awesomeness of the Videocore gpu (its dated 2009 and shows Videocore III not the new Videocore IV that our phone supposedly has).
http://www.geek.com/articles/mobile...-video-and-gaming-to-mobile-devices-20090112/
I think that the SGAi and SGY are a base model to see how this chip performs in the real world, and future phones made by Samsung will be using this chipset to its full potential, and that might be why they haven't released a fully working kernel.
Then again this is all speculation and i could be wrong.
[email protected] said:
There must be some code missing from the kernel limiting the capabilities if the chip. Damn Samsung. Which is why we don't have a complete kernel to compile.
Imagine if we had a "fully working" kernel....... It would compete with their more expensive products.
Here is an article and Youtube video I've found showing the awesomeness of the Videocore gpu (its dated 2009 and shows Videocore III not the new Videocore IV that our phone supposedly has).
http://www.geek.com/articles/mobile...-video-and-gaming-to-mobile-devices-20090112/
I think that the SGAi and SGY are a base model to see how this chip performs in the real world, and future phones made by Samsung will be using this chipset to its full potential, and that might be why they haven't released a fully working kernel.
Then again this is all speculation and i could be wrong.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you are right. Videocore 4 seems to be something better than adreno....its for samsung's new age devices. But until and unless we derive its full potential its of no use. We need to pursue samsung to help us in doing that. Is there a way so that they are forced to release it asap?
Sent from my GT-S5830i using Tapatalk 2
Androidnow said:
I think you are right. Videocore 4 seems to be something better than adreno....its for samsung's new age devices. But until and unless we derive its full potential its of no use. We need to pursue samsung to help us in doing that. Is there a way so that they are forced to release it asap?
Sent from my GT-S5830i using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Go to court and sue them
Hi,
Despite the effort put by Intel into SoC field , its SoC are not that popular in mobile devices.I know main reason for popularity of ARM based SoC is low power consumption.But what are other reasons ?
Thanks,
Gagan3019 said:
Hi,
Despite the effort put by Intel into SoC field , its SoC are not that popular in mobile devices.I know main reason for popularity of ARM based SoC is low power consumption.But what are other reasons ?
Thanks,
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's the same matter of nVidia SoCs... powerful but unsupported.
they missed the bus earlier by not betting big on Android and now for them to catch up will take considerable time and effort as the market is already flooded with low cost player, the only premium player in the game is Qualcomm.
So I am fairly new to Android and ARM processors in general so this may be a completely idiotic question but if someone can give me an answer.
I have an old Hummingboard SOC board, I was wanting to run Android on it but the support from that company is quite poor with an official "supported Android" being the Kitkat version and nothing newer.
I know that Google announced it would be adding support for Raspberry PI boards way back in 2016 through their ASOP but I was wondering how this would translate to other SOC boards that aren't Raspberry PI?
I am a bit confused as to why it would matter just to run it since all SOC boards use an ARM processor and while the various peripherals such as the LAN, I/O Pinout, etc may not work or work properly due to lack of drivers I am confused about why wouldn't Android run at all?
For example, if I have an AMD or Intel Processor that is in x86 architecture and I want to run Windows I do not have to worry about the version of Windows or whether it supports the processor. Does this matter for SOC boards?