Related
Hi all,
I am noob at XDA. (About myself: I am a software engineer aged 30. I have been hacking computers since I was 10.)
I am here because I am planning to buy a new Android device soon. (And unless something really revolutionary happens, I don't plan to upgrade it in the next 2 years or so, so it's a long-term decision.)
My short-list is:
- HTC One S
- Sony Xperia S
or, if everything else fails:
- Samsung Galaxy Nexus
The hardware of the One S and the Xperia S is obviously more powerful than the Galaxy Nexus; my only concern is the software side of things.
The thing is, I really don't like the customization the hardware vendors do with the software, so I want to run raw vanilla AOSP, or something very close to it.
(CM definitely qualifies.)
Also, I am sick of waiting for ages for new android versions to be ported to my device.
Obviously, Galaxy Nexus is guaranteed to be get Android upgrades first, so that's a safe choice in this respect, but since I like the hardware of Xperia S (and One S) so much, I would like to gain a better understanding the software situation of them, so I can make an informed decision about my purchase.
I am aware of the fact that Sony is actively supporting the Free Xperia Team, which is bringing CM9 to Nozomi (among other devices), but I have no information about the details of the project, or it's limitations.
So, my questions are the following:
1. What is the exact nature of the support Sony is providing to the FXP team? (HW? HW docs? Binary drivers? Driver source? Consultation?) Has this changed in any way, now that Sony Ericsson has become Sony? Was this a one-time action, or have they made any commitment about the future?
2. What does one need to build a vanilla android ROM for the S, using the AOSP sources? (Let's forget Cyanogenmod for now.) What is the status of the required device drivers?
3. What are the current obstacles, hindering the release of CM9 (or any other derivative of AOSP) for this device? As far as I know, Nozomi was released in 2012.02, ~4 months ago. ICS was released in 2011.10, ~8 months ago. Official ICS (Sony's version, with Timescape) is rolling out about now; CM9 is not yet released. I wonder what is taking so long?
(Please understand that I really, literally wonder: I am not demanding anything, and I am not trying to offend or accuse anyone; I am totally aware that I don't understand the process; I would like to have more information to understand what needs to be done. And since I am software engineer, and I am not afraid of getting my hand dirty, so eventually, I might end up helping with it...)
4. Do we have any information about Sony's plan for this device beyond ICS? Jelly Bean is coming up soon. Regardless of Sony's decision, when JB is released, I would like to run it on my device, as soon as possible. What are our prospects for porting JB to Nozomi? Is Sony going to help with porting the device drivers to the new kernel, is something like that would come up?
* * *
Thank you for explaining this:
Csillag
1) No one knows for sure, but I'm pretty sure that it's not game changing, judging by the progress me and Doomlord made on AOKP without any help from Sony (obviously).
2) You can try building Gingerbread, but no one cares, right? For ICS, see the next answer.
3) The most important problem is that we don't have the drivers/kernel sources, and there's not much motivation for building it from scratch considering the soon(ish) ICS release. There are leaks with files for so called 'brown' or developer devices, but they also don't give much because of different low-level software. So the state of things is that almost everything but wireless is working, but wireless doesn't work at all. That means data, calls and WiFi.
4) JellyBean will likely be a minor upgrade (4.1 that is) and there's nothing stopping Sony from releasing anything on the 4.x branch. When 5.0 comes, it will depend on the hardware requirements but I'd guess we're getting it too.
K900 said:
1) No one knows for sure,
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How is that possible?
The FXP guys (bin4ry, jerpelea, etc) are here on these forums...
... did they have to swear secrecy, even about the circumstances?
but I'm pretty sure that it's not game changing, judging by the progress me and Doomlord made on AOKP without any help from Sony (obviously).
2) You can try building Gingerbread, but no one cares, right? For ICS, see the next answer.
3) The most important problem is that we don't have the drivers/kernel sources,
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You mean we don't have the kernel sources for ICS, right? Because for GB, we do have something, in this thread... I guess I should ask this in the relevant thread, but has anybody determined the exact differences between this source and the stock ( 2.6.35 ? ) kernel this is based on? How many non-standard drivers are there? Do they come from Sony directly, or do they come from 3rd parties? I will need to look into this...
and there's not much motivation for building it from scratch considering the soon(ish) ICS release.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And according to past experience, how long does it take Sony to release the kernel for ICS, after the imminent official ICS release?
There are leaks with files for so called 'brown' or developer devices, but they also don't give much because of different low-level software. So the state of things is that almost everything but wireless is working, but wireless doesn't work at all. That means data, calls and WiFi.
4) JellyBean will likely be a minor upgrade (4.1 that is) and there's nothing stopping Sony from releasing anything on the 4.x branch. When 5.0 comes, it will depend on the hardware requirements but I'd guess we're getting it too.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
OK, that part sound good.
* * *
Thank you for explaining:
Csillag
csillag said:
How is that possible?
The FXP guys (bin4ry, jerpelea, etc) are here on these forums...
... did they have to swear secrecy, even about the circumstances?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I haven't seen them tell anyone, and I've never seen them do anything that's not available for everyone else (thankfully).
csillag said:
You mean we don't have the kernel sources for ICS, right? Because for GB, we do have something, in this thread... I guess I should ask this in the relevant thread, but has anybody determined the exact differences between this source and the stock ( 2.6.35 ? ) kernel this is based on? How many non-standard drivers are there? Do they come from Sony directly, or do they come from 3rd parties? I will need to look into this...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are kernel sources for GB, the same ones from which the stock kernel was built. If you mean the upstream Linux kernel, it'll be a huge diff that's not so easy to port without datasheets (which we don't have) and actual understanding of how the hardware works. Speaking of drivers, I'm pretty sure you misunderstand the way Linux / Android 'drivers' work. Kernel-space drivers (modules) and userspace drivers (libraries and daemons) are two different things. They have to open source their kernels because Linus's tree ('official' Linux) is GPL, but the userspace parts are proprietary. ICS also brought many ABI changes, so just taking old libs and placing them in a new ROM often doesn't suffice.
csillag said:
And according to past experience, how long does it take Sony to release the kernel for ICS, after the imminent official ICS release?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It takes time, can't say how long really, but it shouldn't take too long because they know we want those sources.
K900 said:
I haven't seen them tell anyone, and I've never seen them do anything that's not available for everyone else (thankfully).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Have you seen them being explicitly asked about this?
(Because not saying anything because not being asked is completely different that refusing to reveal this info....)
There are kernel sources for GB, the same ones from which the stock kernel was built. If you mean the upstream Linux kernel,
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, that was what I have meant when I wrote "stock". Now I see that it was ambiguous wording...
it'll be a huge diff
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's sad.
I was hoping for finding only some added drivers, plus some small configuration changes elsewhere.
that's not so easy to port without datasheets
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
obviously
(which we don't have)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We don't have it, but the "official" FreeXperia team might, or they might be able to ask for it. This is exactly the kind of information I am trying to find about their collaboration with Sony...
and actual understanding of how the hardware works. Speaking of drivers, I'm pretty sure you misunderstand the way Linux / Android 'drivers' work.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, actually I get that part. (I am exclusively using Linux for about 13 years now, and I have also done some kernel hacks earlier.) But maybe my wording was ambiguous again...
Kernel-space drivers (modules) and userspace drivers (libraries and daemons) are two different things. They have to open source their kernels because Linus's tree ('official' Linux) is GPL,
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, that does not stop some vendors (like NVidia) to ship binary kernel modules, so I would not be too surprised to find even binary kernel modules bundled with the code. But if they are open source, that that's great.
but the userspace parts are proprietary.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I did not know the devices require userspace parts. I was assuming that the kernel modules implement standard linux device interfaces; for example cameras are simply accessible via v4l[2], the modem is a character device, etc...
...so you say this is not the situation, and besides the kernel modules, they require custom user-space parts for operation, right?
ICS also brought many ABI changes, so just taking old libs and placing them in a new ROM often doesn't suffice.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, that part is clean.
It takes time, can't say how long really, but it shouldn't take too long because they know we want those sources.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So, you say that it's a totally possible situation that we need to wait for several further months until we can get access to the kernel sources, and build proper CM9, right?
Unfortunately, this is exactly what I would like to avoid.
Maybe I should just stick to Galaxy Nexus, in spite of the older hardware...
Thank you for explaining:
Csillag
csillag said:
Have you seen them being explicitly asked about this?
(Because not saying anything because not being asked is completely different that refusing to reveal this info....)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They tend to ignore such questions. PM me if you want my personal opinion, I'll try to stick to the facts here.
csillag said:
Yes, that was what I have meant when I wrote "stock". Now I see that it was ambiguous wording...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nevermind.
csillag said:
That's sad.
I was hoping for finding only some added drivers, plus some small configuration changes elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They add some stuff, but they also change stuff internally. Tweaks and patches and many different things to get the best performance on this specific board. CAF has a generic msm-3.0 kernel, but that's not as customized. And we're not really waiting for the kernelspace here.
csillag said:
We don't have it, but the "official" FreeXperia team might, or they might be able to ask for it. This is exactly the kind of information I am trying to find about their collaboration with Sony...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Such things are very, very strongly NDA protected. That's Qualcomm's secret sauce, and it wouldn't be secret any more if they gave datasheets to the community.
csillag said:
No, actually I get that part. (I am exclusively using Linux for about 13 years now, and I have also done some kernel hacks earlier.) But maybe my wording was ambiguous again...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nevermind
csillag said:
Well, that does not stop some vendors (like NVidia) to ship binary kernel modules, so I would not be too surprised to find even binary kernel modules bundled with the code. But if they are open source, that that's great.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually what NVIDIA does is ship a GPL'ed kernel module whose only function is to set up an interface through which the userspace (libGL) can talk to the hardware. So their kernel module is open source, but all the magic happens in the proprietary userspace.
csillag said:
I did not know the devices require userspace parts. I was assuming that the kernel modules implement standard linux device interfaces; for example cameras are simply accessible via v4l[2], the modem is a character device, etc...
...so you say this is not the situation, and besides the kernel modules, they require custom user-space parts for operation, right?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Android has a HAL of its own, so mostly it's about HAL modules, libGL and libril (Radio Interface Layer) to talk to the modem. And here is where many hardware vendors pull an NVIDIA.
csillag said:
So, you say that it's a totally possible situation that we need to wait for several further months until we can get access to the kernel sources, and build proper CM9, right?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, the kernel isn't that much of a problem. If we have to wait for too long, we'll just take CodeAurora msm-3.0 and port it which shouldn't be too hard cause it's as generic as possible.
csillag said:
Maybe I should just stick to Galaxy Nexus, in spite of the older hardware...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you want AOSP now, you should go with the GNex. But the XPS is a nice phone, and the prospects with AOSP are good. Also would be nice to have someone more experienced with Linux (I'm just a student here) on the team/forums. If you get the XPS, PM me or Doomlord and I hope you'll help get AOKP running
Hello All,
As you all know I've been part of Xda and assiting in a positive resolution from HTC in requests from Bootloaders to source codes. Well seeing we have a great device that seemed to be given EOL to early in its game.. in my opinion due to lack of marketing skills. Well I will be posting in HTC FB to get our voice out to them for the Source Code release for our device.
Please comment "Like" and comment to request this so we can continue development for the Flyer.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151213297764443&set=o.165420456859572&type=1&ref=nf
And Here:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151213304969443&set=o.101063233083&type=1&relevant_count=1
Um, source code of what? They release sources of Honeycomb, and there are no sources of ICS or Jelly Bean, so what's the whole point?
Source code for drivers which can be ported to ICS and JB. Anyway it helps coders make their own drivers for Camera/Front camera and for video
kayoma said:
Source code for drivers which can be ported to ICS and JB. Anyway it helps coders make their own drivers for Camera/Front camera and for video
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then we would need not just the drivers, but the whole 3.x kernel. I believe it's much harder to adapt ICS/JB drivers to GB/HC kernels
kayoma said:
Source code for drivers which can be ported to ICS and JB. Anyway it helps coders make their own drivers for Camera/Front camera and for video
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then we're asking the wrong ppl, it's not HTC. to understand this first you need to understand what makes up a ROM.
There is the kernel which is low level device specific, the kernel is mostly based on open source linux code, htc adds some board and device specific configuration on top of that.
Then there is the aosp which is also open source, an operating system provided by google that makes up most part of any ROM.
Then you have your aosp derivative like CM or AOKP, which provides board specific fixes and some customization. HTC's ROM is also based on aosp, but they add their own sense look and feel to it.
And finally and most importantly you have your close source proprietary drivers provided by chip manufactures like Qualcomm and TI. They control cameras, wifi, BT...etc. So in reality there is very little HTC could do as they don't have the rights to release these code. And that's is where most ppl run into issues.
So to create a ROM is not hard at all, anybody can download the source code and compile it to generate a ROM as most of the source code are all open source. What will be helpful is if Qualcomm releases the source code for their drivers, which I doubt they will ever do, otherwise they wouldn't be close source in the first place. The only thing we could do is try to reverse engineer the device base on logs and understanding of how each component should work and make educated guesses.
Due to HTC lack of effort on this device (No ICS - HC was slow joke) I will never buy another HTC product again, same goes for sony, though they did eventually update xperia x10i it was only due to huge pressure not because they wanted to.
I want to buy an electronic product that potentially remains relevant at least a year later otherwise forget it.
so i sent this letter to HTC
after reading this page where HTC discusses 4.1 upgrades i decided to drop them a line "
DIRECTLY FROM YOUR WEBSITE:
When will additional devices receive Android 4.1?
In addition to the HTC One X and HTC One S, we are actively reviewing our product portfolio to identify candidates to receive Jelly Bean. Our goal is to prioritize review for devices launched in 2012 with our numerous carrier partners across multiple regions and then consider our ability to provide updates to products from 2011.
What devices will not get Android 4.1?
We work hard to ensure each of our products has the optimal user experience and therefore some products will remain at their current version of Android. In general, devices with 512MB RAM or less will not be upgraded to Android 4.1. At present, these devices include the HTC One V and the HTC Desire C. As we identify other devices that will not be upgraded, we'll provide updated information.
What about a development version of Android 4.1?
For our developer community, we plan to make generic development ROMs of Jelly Bean available for both the HTC One X and HTC One S. As soon as the ROMs are ready, they will be posted to our HTCdev site (www.htcdev.com). We strongly recommend customers take the time to understand the limitations of the development software along with the terms and conditions on the site before downloading to their device.
REALLY!? have you listened to what your customers have asked/said about the HTC flyer at all?! where is OUR 4.1 DEVELOPMENT ROM! wtf! where are you for us!? I can tell you where... you are giving us 3.2 HC that takes away two very important features i bought the device for #1 GPS! completely broken by your newest update to HC. #2. Hardware Keys.... WHY?! i understand that HC introduced soft keys. so you say you "We work hard to ensure each of our products has the optimal user experience" BULL! you clearly weren't thinking about the end user when you pushed out that HC update for the flyer. Would have been smarter for you to leave us on working GB and go straight to ICS or JB when it was ready! this is lunacy! who ever is making decisions in your company needs fired. you are bleeding money from everywhere. why don't you bring it back to the old school HTC that CARED! ABOUT! IT'S CUSTOMERS! listen to what we are saying! hear our voice! we have signed petitions. we have pleaded on multiple forums. WE have poured over your FB and twitter pages asking for you to throw us a freaking bone here.... when is it gonna happen? ever?!
I still have my flyer and i love it dearly. but without updates it's falling behind the pack. I recently bought a 10.1 galaxy note. while i'm happy with it's speed and what not. it's not the form factor i want. which is what the flyer is for me. perfect. PLEASE DON'T GIVE UP ON US OR THIS DEVICE! PLEASE RELEASE A DEVELOPER ROM FOR OUR FLYER! "
this was their reply (you will want to read it for sure)
Dear Matt,
Thanks for contacting HTC!
We completely understand your concern and I thank you for your patience and am deeply sorry if this issue has caused you any dissatisfaction with HTC or its phones. I hope that it will not detract from your overall perspective of the device or the company. You are the most important part of the HTC Family.
We listen to our community and feedbacks like yours are the ones that make us revise our decisions, and try to find the correct balance between the device’s performance and usability. We cannot announce or say anything about the Flyer right now but what I can tell you is that we are, indeed, paying attention to the community´s feedback and opinions.
Should you require further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us through http://www.htc.com/us/support/email-support or call us at +1-866-449-8358 from 6AM to 1AM EST, 7 days a week.
Have a great day!
Let me know if I have successfully answered your question, please click here to complete this.
To send a reply to this message, please click here.
Sincerely,
Carlos
HTC
I appreciate the passion here, but HTC left this device for dead along with the Jetstream and View shortly after releasing it. We received what would amounted to a Beta of Honeycomb then they closed up shop. You live and learn, and although I still use my Flyer and enjoy it I will not buy another HTC device
I completely agree with you .. HTC should give us ICS or JB for our Flyer as a good faith. We must keep GB because honeycomb is a joke..
I use my Flyer and i try as much as possible with the optimized news on GB .. and share with you.
Hoping for a good action on their part for JB!!
Fatal1ty_18_RUS said:
Then we would need not just the drivers, but the whole 3.x kernel. I believe it's much harder to adapt ICS/JB drivers to GB/HC kernels
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
so the kernel source for HC 3.2 that's in HTCDev,,that is NOT the entire kernel sourcecode?
i know it's an old thread but i am wondering...
gersto said:
so the kernel source for HC 3.2 that's in HTCDev,,that is NOT the entire kernel sourcecode?
i know it's an old thread but i am wondering...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
that the honeycomb kernel .
doesn't do you much good for ICS or JB
yncconsulting said:
Then we're asking the wrong ppl, it's not HTC. to understand this first you need to understand what makes up a ROM.
.
.
.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You didn't understand I think. The drivers are part of the kernel. May they be compiled into the kernel itself or in form of modules. Drivers can be binary objects to be linked (already compiled) or source code which will be compiled when the kernel is built.
If you have the drivers source code there is a fairly good chance to get them running in newer kernels with some minor changes.
So from my point of view you will have a good chance to even get 4.2 up and running as long as you have the drivers source code.
Sent from my GT-I9100G using xda app-developers app
ktp1976 said:
You didn't understand I think. The drivers are part of the kernel. May they be compiled into the kernel itself or in form of modules. Drivers can be binary objects to be linked (already compiled) or source code which will be compiled when the kernel is built.
If you have the drivers source code there is a fairly good chance to get them running in newer kernels with some minor changes.
So from my point of view you will have a good chance to even get 4.2 up and running as long as you have the drivers source code.
Sent from my GT-I9100G using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yeah, so my point is HTC publishes kernel source code, not drivers, they don't even own some of the drivers .,so you will never get that. You get a HC kernel ,that works with a HC blob set and you cannot build a working 4.xx kernel because you don;t have a 4.xxx blob set and HTC won't give you one because they have never written one and never will
DigitalMD said:
that the honeycomb kernel .
doesn't do you much good for ICS or JB
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well they must be of some good since we have ICS/JB ROMs out there that are "mostly" complete, slick and usable, although slightly buggy, so obviously yeah i get that it doesn't solve all the issues we have, since some drivers are missing: as evident by the non-working FC, no hardware decoding for video, and semi-working BT
DigitalMD said:
yeah, so my point is HTC publishes kernel source code, not drivers, they don't even own some of the drivers .,so you will never get that. You get a HC kernel ,that works with a HC blob set and you cannot build a working 4.xx kernel because you don;t have a 4.xxx blob set and HTC won't give you one because they have never written one and never will
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not exactly. The kernel is also part of AOSP. And even if HTC does not supply the driver sources there is a slight chance to use old driver binaries or to have them reverse engineered by some genius dev. Hope is the last to die
Sent from my GT-I9100G using xda app-developers app
ktp1976 said:
Not exactly. The kernel is also part of AOSP. And even if HTC does not supply the driver sources there is a slight chance to use old driver binaries or to have them reverse engineered by some genius dev. Hope is the last to die
Sent from my GT-I9100G using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Keep dreaming. Some of the best around have tried that path.
No the device kernel is not in AOSP, the base linux (ANdorid) kernel source resides there, but if you look at the build, it calls in device , vendor, OS verson and board specific components to make a complete build. All that hooks into the blobs (drivers and libs) to make up the device specific environment that allows Android version X.XX to run
DigitalMD said:
Keep dreaming. Some of the best around have tried that path.
No the device kernel is not in AOSP, the base linux (ANdorid) kernel source resides there, but if you look at the build, it calls in device , vendor, OS verson and board specific components to make a complete build. All that hooks into the blobs (drivers and libs) to make up the device specific environment that allows Android version X.XX to run
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for clarification. So I was not wrong about the drivers, which are the device and vendor specific components. In other words if you can get the vendor to release their sources or make their chip/board manufacturers to release their sources is the only way to go. Seems a bit unrealistic though but who knows...
Sent from my GT-I9100G using xda app-developers app
All should email the HTCDev
Use this link http://www.htcdev.com/contact
They themselves posted on that link
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151213304969443&set=o.101063233083&type=1&relevant_count=1
Takes just f**kin 5 seconds
May be they will listen some day
freworld said:
All should email the HTCDev
Use this link http://www.htcdev.com/contact
They themselves posted on that link
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151213304969443&set=o.101063233083&type=1&relevant_count=1
Takes just f**kin 5 seconds
May be they will listen some day
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1
Hello,
I've been a fan of this site for a while, and I just created an account tonight.
I noticed that the ICS kernel source was released by HTC today. I am looking forward to having a nice ICS AOSP rom with working video. Thank you DEVS!
With the ICS kernel source, are we limited to ICS versions of android? Can the kernel source be modified to work with Jelly Bean? Maybe CM10.1?
From a verizon customer holding on to unlimited data,
thanks again to all of the DEVs and individuals that contribute to the Thunderbolt community.
blackshoes said:
Hello,
I've been a fan of this site for a while, and I just created an account tonight.
I noticed that the ICS kernel source was released by HTC today. I am looking forward to having a nice ICS AOSP rom with working video. Thank you DEVS!
With the ICS kernel source, are we limited to ICS versions of android? Can the kernel source be modified to work with Jelly Bean? Maybe CM10.1?
From a verizon customer holding on to unlimited data,
thanks again to all of the DEVs and individuals that contribute to the Thunderbolt community.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From what I understand it's being worked on, maybe not actively right now but it seems to be a strong possibility.
HTC released their kernel version 3.0.16. That will out-of-the-box support Ice Cream Sandwich. Jelly Bean needs 3.0.31 (or higher). I think what the kernel developers now need to do is back port the necessary bits and pieces to HTC's version to make it compatible.
hallstevenson said:
HTC released their kernel version 3.0.16. That will out-of-the-box support Ice Cream Sandwich. Jelly Bean needs 3.0.31 (or higher). I think what the kernel developers now need to do is back port the necessary bits and pieces to HTC's version to make it compatible.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Already have one patched up to around 3.0.80, just gotta finish adding in the new board files, LTE drivers and defconfig.
As we all know though, older kernels can also be made to run versions they aren't intended for as well.
Also already have CM10.1 running pretty darn well...
santod040 said:
Already have one patched up to around 3.0.80, just gotta finish adding in the new board files, LTE drivers and defconfig.
As we all know though, older kernels can also be made to run versions they aren't intended for as well.
Also already have CM10.1 running pretty darn well...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What a tease!
Sent from my Blissful Bolt using Tapatalk 2
santod040 said:
Already have one patched up to around 3.0.80, just gotta finish adding in the new board files, LTE drivers and defconfig.
As we all know though, older kernels can also be made to run versions they aren't intended for as well.
Also already have CM10.1 running pretty darn well...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is great news Santod!
santod040 said:
Already have one patched up to around 3.0.80, just gotta finish adding in the new board files, LTE drivers and defconfig.
As we all know though, older kernels can also be made to run versions they aren't intended for as well.
Also already have CM10.1 running pretty darn well...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think I just soiled myself. Oh the amazing things I miss while I'm at work.
santod040 said:
Already have one patched up to around 3.0.80, just gotta finish adding in the new board files, LTE drivers and defconfig.
As we all know though, older kernels can also be made to run versions they aren't intended for as well.
Also already have CM10.1 running pretty darn well...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Is the RIL working for you?
video of cm1.1 on the tbolt
blackshoes said:
Hello,
I've been a fan of this site for a while, and I just created an account tonight.
I noticed that the ICS kernel source was released by HTC today. I am looking forward to having a nice ICS AOSP rom with working video. Thank you DEVS!
With the ICS kernel source, are we limited to ICS versions of android? Can the kernel source be modified to work with Jelly Bean? Maybe CM10.1?
From a verizon customer holding on to unlimited data,
thanks again to all of the DEVs and individuals that contribute to the Thunderbolt community.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
HTC Thunderbolt Runnig cm10.1 Video:good:
jacobmacek said:
HTC Thunderbolt Runnig cm10.1 Video:good:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
loving this! :good:
Cyanogenmod 10.1 official support?
I'm curious. Once the devs are able to get the kernel ready for cyanogenmod 10.1, has anyone thought about submitting that kernel to cyanogenmod for official Thunderbolt cyanogenmod builds?
From the posting linked below, cyanogenmod requires a tested kernel and a developer or group of developers that will maintain the kernel for official support. Is cyanogenmod official support a possibility with the kernel the DEVs are working on?
forum.cyanogenmod.com/topic/72612-can-i-get-cyanogenmod-on-my-device/
Thanks for the info!
blackshoes said:
I'm curious. Once the devs are able to get the kernel ready for cyanogenmod 10.1, has anyone thought about submitting that kernel to cyanogenmod for official Thunderbolt cyanogenmod builds?
From the posting linked below, cyanogenmod requires a tested kernel and a developer or group of developers that will maintain the kernel for official support. Is cyanogenmod official support a possibility with the kernel the DEVs are working on?
forum.cyanogenmod.com/topic/72612-can-i-get-cyanogenmod-on-my-device/
Thanks for the info!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can't speak for everyone, but let's get "that" kernel worked out first.
It's now possible, but still not exactly a simple task.
Having already knocked out a custom Sense ICS kernel from the source was done without much hassle already.
And Jelly Bean has come pretty far for the Bolt already, but making a fully functional Jelly Bean kernel from HTC's ICS source may take a bit more dilligence.
So I would just say let's take it one step at a time.
Official builds would require dedication on a dev or multiple devs parts to continue updating and supporting it.
There aren't a lot of candidates left, that may still have enough personal interest in doing so when that time comes.
Basically, that's just not something that can be predicted at this point, as there are still uncertainties surrounding such a thing, from several different aspects/angles.
It would of course be great to see the old Bolt be added to the list of devices which are officially supported.
Who knows what else the future may hold for this faithful beast that keeps getting surprises, even if long overdue.
jacobmacek said:
HTC Thunderbolt Runnig cm10.1 Video:good:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I want.
Sent from my Blissful Bolt using Tapatalk 2
Good Morning to you all!
Sorry if this has already been posted but I couldn't find much of anything on this topic. Does a "Google Edition" Rom exist for the EVO 4G LTE? I know we have the AOSP and AOKP roms but this is something I've wanted to ask for a while. I love the pure Google experience and I just have to wait about a year until i can upgrade to a new phone like a Nexus.
Thank you again for taking the the time to read this and for all the awesome work all you Developers put in for making this awesome phone even better.
Sent from my EVO using xda app-developers app
No. But the AOSP ROMs we have work fine. What's wrong with flashing one of them? They are essentially the same thing, except, well, better .
Captain_Throwback said:
No. But the AOSP ROMs we have work fine. What's wrong with flashing one of them? They are essentially the same thing, except, well, better .
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm with you on that one. Not sure why anyone with knowledge of rooting (who doesn't mind a voided warranty) would want to buy a GE phone.
______________________________
HTC Evo 4G LTE
I don't have any problem with any AOSP Rom other than signal and connectivity issues. But its really just curiosity for me and I'm a big fan of Google so the idea of having a Google Editon EVO sounds cool to me.
Sent from my EVO using xda app-developers app
Well it won't happen.
And aosp is just as much Google as a GE would be.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using xda premium
Imagine having a GE ROM that had added functionality and customizations. Then, go download one of our CM/AOKP/DU ROMs. - imagination realized.
Or, put another way, take one of our AOSP ROMs, strip away functionality and customization, and you have a GE ROM.
Is that what you're looking for?
Not trying to sound smart ass, totally sincere.
Sent from my EVO using xda premium
scottspa74 said:
Imagine having a GE ROM that had added functionality and customizations. Then, go download one of our CM/AOKP/DU ROMs. - imagination realized.
Or, put another way, take one of our AOSP ROMs, strip away functionality and customization, and you have a GE ROM.
Is that what you're looking for?
Not trying to sound smart ass, totally sincere.
Sent from my EVO using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What do you think would be a good solid AOSP Rom to either behave like a GE Rom or better I've only tried the CM Rom and the Xlyon Rom back and forth and couldn't get the feel I was looking for.
Sent from my EVO using xda app-developers app
ZamoraDC said:
What do you think would be a good solid AOSP Rom to either behave like a GE Rom or better I've only tried the CM Rom and the Xlyon Rom back and forth and couldn't get the feel I was looking for.
Sent from my EVO using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You could always try Evervolv. That's probably the closest to AOSP, that is, with the least customization.
Captain_Throwback said:
No. But the AOSP ROMs we have work fine. What's wrong with flashing one of them? They are essentially the same thing, except, well, better .
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not true. Not trying to insult any devs in any way, but AOSP roms for anything other than a Nexus are hacked together using core binaries from other devices when necessary. There is never such a thing as a bug free AOSP Rom, except for a Google device and/or Google edition.
The Google edition roms on the other hand, were compiled by HTC for a device that they know in and out. Unfortunately, this is one of those times when "the vendor knows best", simply because of sheer resources and hardware documentation.
It would be possible to port the GE roms if you guys ported the GPE kernel and used that to port the rom, like Zarboz and newtoroot did for the DNA.
CNexus said:
Not true. Not trying to insult any devs in any way, but AOSP roms for anything other than a Nexus are hacked together using core binaries from other devices when necessary. There is never such a thing as a bug free AOSP Rom, except for a Google device and/or Google edition.
The Google edition roms on the other hand, were compiled by HTC for a device that they know in and out. Unfortunately, this is one of those times when "the vendor knows best", simply because of sheer resources and hardware documentation.
It would be possible to port the GE roms if you guys ported the GPE kernel and used that to port the rom, like Zarboz and newtoroot did for the DNA.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How difficult is this to do?
Sent from my EVO using xda app-developers app
ZamoraDC said:
How difficult is this to do?
Sent from my EVO using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can't say.
For the DNA it was extremely simple (but zarboz is a boss so he would've gotten it anyway) since the two devices are almost identical (One and DNA).
But the fact that you guys have a 3.4.x official HTC kernel should help.
hacked together using core binaries from other devices when necessary.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You would be surprised at what shortcuts OEMs take too.
Just because they have the resources doesn't necessarily mean it's cost effective, or that their software engineers have the time, to redo everything from scratch for each device. It's usually much easier to make it for one and then adapt that copy for use on other devices. I actually found this site thanks to htc's sloppy implementation of hdmi on the original evo. According to them it was impossible to fix until Toastcfh and Netarchy did just that and rewrote their kernel from scratch (iirc).
If you think about it, this site probably wouldn't even exist if OEMs made good software. They often do have access to proprietary drivers and documentation, but most of that is slowly getting open sourced anyway.
That type of reasoning is a fallacy because more often then not OEMs are just too plain cheap to do things properly. They just need to hit their deadlines. So your only real options are to either buy a nexus device, or invest a little time in helping fix any issues that you may find.
Someone please correct me if I'm thinking of the wrong device, but I believe it was the htc TyTN2 where htc didn't even bother to include a fully functional display driver because they didn't want to pay the license for it.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=359534
CNexus said:
Not true. Not trying to insult any devs in any way, but AOSP roms for anything other than a Nexus are hacked together using core binaries from other devices when necessary. There is never such a thing as a bug free AOSP Rom, except for a Google device and/or Google edition.
The Google edition roms on the other hand, were compiled by HTC for a device that they know in and out. Unfortunately, this is one of those times when "the vendor knows best", simply because of sheer resources and hardware documentation.
It would be possible to port the GE roms if you guys ported the GPE kernel and used that to port the rom, like Zarboz and newtoroot did for the DNA.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Have you ever used one of the IRC builds of cm10 or cm10.1? They're more stable and are more feature rich than the stock ROM that shipped with this device or any of the updates that they were gracious enough to let sense users download over the air. The 3.0 kernel was seriously stable, but the 3.4 kernel is (nearly as) stable _and_ leaves more RAM for your silly animation effects and whatever. It's based on the reference kernel for the chip set, if I'm not making an arse of myself. So pick a build. I know 1/16 was an awesome cm10, and like I said in another topic I had 191 hours uptime on the 7/23 cm10.1 before I rebooted to rule out the ROM when I was having data issues(it was the network) </rant>
Sent from my EVO using xda app-developers app
xHausx said:
You would be surprised at what shortcuts OEMs take too.
Just because they have the resources doesn't necessarily mean it's cost effective, or that their software engineers have the time, to redo everything from scratch for each device. It's usually much easier to make it for one and then adapt that copy for use on other devices. I actually found this site thanks to htc's sloppy implementation of hdmi on the original evo. According to them it was impossible to fix until Toastcfh and Netarchy did just that and rewrote their kernel from scratch (iirc).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not saying they are perfect and neither am I taking sides. But the fact of the matter is that AOSP is ported using binaries made for other devices and other hacks and so is nearly impossible to make it 100% compared to vanilla nexus roms. Issues are inevitable. And those same exact shortcuts you stated apply to and are no exception with AOSP ports like CM or evervolv. They also commonize (not a word, I know) as much as possible. They group devices like all the d2 and all the jflte, or even by processor like s4_common, etc under one common branch to make it easier for themselves to maintain.
I know I'm not gonna win here because of several things, namely being that I'm taking the "wrong" stance from the majority's point of view. But I just felt adding my 0.02 would help with the OP's original question.
xHausx said:
Someone please correct me if I'm thinking of the wrong device, but I believe it was the htc TyTN2 where htc didn't even bother to include a fully functional display driver because they didn't want to pay the license for it.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=359534
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ha! That was my first smartphone! I first signed up on xda (under a different name) when that phone launched (I got it as the att tilt) so that I could run manila and then android on it! That display driver issue was so frustrating. Sorry for ot, but I haven't thought about that in ages.
CNexus said:
Not saying they are perfect and neither am I taking sides. But the fact of the matter is that AOSP is ported using binaries made for other devices and other hacks and so is nearly impossible to make it 100% compared to vanilla nexus roms. Issues are inevitable. And those same exact shortcuts you stated apply to and are no exception with AOSP ports like CM or evervolv. They also commonize (not a word, I know) as much as possible. They group devices like all the d2 and all the jflte, or even by processor like s4_common, etc under one common branch to make it easier for themselves to maintain.
I know I'm not gonna win here because of several things, namely being that I'm taking the "wrong" stance from the majority's point of view. But I just felt adding my 0.02 would help with the OP's original question.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's not accurate to say the binaries are made for other devices when the devices are all basically the same. The MSM8960, for example, has it's own binaries, but the same chip is used in a range of devices from the Evo LTE, Blackberry Z10, One X (LTE), One XL, Windows Phone 8X, LG Mach, Moto Droid Razr M, Droid Razr, Razr Max, Atrix HD, Incredible HD, Xperia GX TL SX & V, Galaxy S III... the list goes on
The binaries all of those devices use were developed for the Qualcomm devkit I've linked below.
When you're working with a sense ROM versus an AOSP ROM there are many differences in not only appearance but the framework as well, but once you start getting down to the kernel level the hardware is all basically the same. Where we have the advantage over OEMs is that most companies know it's counterproductive and a waste of money to go after enthusiasts who borrow their binaries from one device to use on something else. If an OEM did that they would be sued in a heartbeat.
https://developer.qualcomm.com/mobile-development/development-devices/snapdragon-s4-msm8960-mdps
edit: probably actually this instead, but same difference: http://shop.intrinsyc.com/products/dragonboard-members-only
To digress back to the OP's original question though, the google edition One is basically just the one with AOSP on it. If you can find a pure AOSP ROM it'll be the exact same thing.
Thanks for the info I'm really thinking of seeing if i can try and make my own ROM and plus I've always wanted to do so hopefully it all goes well. I just don't wanna brick my phone in the process hahaha. Do you guys think trying to build off of the HTC One GE rom and convert it over to the EVO or use an EVO based AOSP ROM? Thanks again for all the help.
Sent from my Evo 4G LTE using xda app-developers app
ZamoraDC said:
Thanks for the info I'm really thinking of seeing if i can try and make my own ROM and plus I've always wanted to do so hopefully it all goes well. I just don't wanna brick my phone in the process hahaha. Do you guys think trying to build off of the HTC One GE rom and convert it over to the EVO or use an EVO based AOSP ROM? Thanks again for all the help.
Sent from my Evo 4G LTE using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why don't you just build AOSP? You can use the CM kernel and pull the relevant vendor files from an existing AOSP ROM (or find an up-to-date github with them).
That way you don't have to worry about having the extra customizations, but you'll still have a kernel built from Qualcomm source along with the ROM.
asop aokp cm
I have tried a lot of ROMs and I find these devs do a much better job than stock ROMs yes you have some bugs in some but the always work them out cudos to the devs I'm just glad they still support my device and having gabe up on it
I currenty have a VZW S4, but it's locked down tight... and im kind of sick of samsung siding with the carrier on this. so i was thinking of getting the onemax through edge.
Is it locked as tight as the s4? that is can you flash AOSP roms after getting the latest update?
And how is development, i might be a bit lost because of a lack of carrier specific subforum, but i dont see many VZW roms...
Development is practically non existent. However viper team is about to drop the first custom rom soon.
We have root.. Unlocked bootloader and S-off though.
Sense is flawless compared to the touchwiz.
sent from my humongous VZW HTC ONE MAX
Search.
The phone is fully unlocked as in bootloader unlocked (all variants) s-off (all variants) root and recovery (all variants) it's not that the developer support is non-existent it's the fact and this is in regards to AOSP that HTC hasn't released the source code yet for the kernel.. Once source is uploaded all AOSP teams and that will be Cyanogen first as always since all teams pull from CM will AOSP builds finally kick off... It's just a waiting game now. All the hard work getting to AOSP is done thanks to beaups!!! But yeah not to be that guy though since you are coming from the S4 and should know how XDA and all forums work read a bit. A post or 2 down from you was basically the same question lol.. If you would have checked Origiginal Android Development and Android Development you would have seen what is available thus far.... But to be honest though my man, this phone is sick... It's everything the OG One is but bigger for the phablet freaks like myself!!!!!!! Trust in the community and especially Flyhalf AOSP will come!
reinaldistic said:
I currenty have a VZW S4, but it's locked down tight... and im kind of sick of samsung siding with the carrier on this. so i was thinking of getting the onemax through edge.
Is it locked as tight as the s4? that is can you flash AOSP roms after getting the latest update?
And how is development, i might be a bit lost because of a lack of carrier specific subforum, but i dont see many VZW roms...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Given the hardware between the One and the MAX are almost identical it is expected to be easy for dev's to port the code for the MAX from the one.
me and @deagleone actually tried flashing the One's kernel and the phone boots, the only thing that was broken was the WiFi which is a because of the different hardware.
The One was the phones which received a lot of dev support and has variety of custom rom's from AOSP to Sense
Wait hold up.... You were able to boot a HTC One kernel? What kernel? This is interesting...
pradeepvizz said:
Given the hardware between the One and the MAX are almost identical it is expected to be easy for dev's to port the code for the MAX from the one.
me and @deagleone actually tried flashing the One's kernel and the phone boots, the only thing that was broken was the WiFi which is a because of the different hardware.
The One was the phones which received a lot of dev support and has variety of custom rom's from AOSP to Sense
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Murrda said:
Wait hold up.... You were able to boot a HTC One kernel? What kernel? This is interesting...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, ElementalX @flar2's kernel for the HTC One. I did flash it and it booted up. I was not able to use the kernel features for example S2W, however @deagleone reported that S2W works with his ROM.
Once HTC makes the kernel sources available, i think development should pickup easily.