General informations:
This thread's aim is only to represent a central meeting and discussion point for BCM21553 developers and, in particular, for the open Kernel/ROM sources development for the Samsung Galaxy Pocket GT-S5300 (codenamed Cori).
Information for common users:
As already described in the previous section, if you are not a developer, please restrict your posts to the general discussion thread so that developers can maintain good communication. Every post that is not strictly respecting these rules will be reported to the forum moderators. Thanks for your understanding.
For any other BCM21553 device related question or information, please, use this thread as a reference point, instead:
[DEVS ONLY][BCM21553 series] CyanogenMod 11 for BCM21553 Development Discussion
As someone already might know, I'm streambinder, from MoltenMotherBoard team.
I have already followed some projects for the GT-S5300, but especially kept in contact
with some of the events related to the porting of ROM and Kernel sources for BCM21553 chipset based devices.
In this precise moment, the sources in my possession allow you to be able to compile
a bugfree CWM 5.0.2.8 (based on CyanogenMod 7 code) with a kernel based on the Samsung stock one.
The only - fundamental - problem was due to the fact that unless I hadn't used the prebuilt INIT binary
token in the Samsung stock firmware boot.img, the phone would not work - or, better, boot up.
This means that until the situation - regarding this issue - doesn't change, our access to the porting of custom ROM
would be barred.
Recently, I decided to give Cori another chance and rework my sources, looking at the wonderful work brought
by the BroadcomCM team on CyanogenMod 9 (in particular, thanks to @bieltv.3 and @Alberto96) and @psyke83 on CyanogenMod 11.
They've not only been able to run these two ROMs in a more or less crude way, but this developer has been able to write
the necessary strings to make the INIT binary of some of these BCM21553 devices opensource.
Strong of this informations, I readjusted some of the sources of BroadcomCM's CyangenMod 9, which includes
all the progress carried out by both the team and psyke83, in order to make them work even on Cori,
and am now next to the first test of the CWM 6.X.X.X, based on IceCreamSandwich code.
At the same time, @akhbh is working on the KitKat code based CWM.
I hope I can give more information about any progress as soon as possible.
The General Discussion thread for non-development issues is here:
*.[DISCUSSION] CyanogenMod 11 For Galaxy Pocket GT-S5300 Discussion Thread
Made a first test of CWM based on CyanogenMod 9 code.
It seems it cannot flash it as it weighs so much compared to its partition configuration value: in fact, the maximum boot partition size is set up to 5.0MB, but the compiled boot.img weighs 5.3MB.
Will have to resize its weight in order to make it fill into the partition.
@akhbh, have you had any complication in these terms, with CyanogenMod 11 sources?
@psyke83, what do you suggest to do? Do you think an increasement of boot partition would be a better idea?
streambinder said:
Made a first test of CWM based on CyanogenMod 9 code.
It seems it cannot flash it as it weighs so much compared to its partition configuration value: in fact, the maximum boot partition size is set up to 5.0MB, but the compiled boot.img weighs 5.3MB.
Will have to resize its weight in order to make it fill into the partition.
@akhbh, have you had any complication in these terms, with CyanogenMod 11 sources?
@psyke83, what do you suggest to do? Do you think an increasement of boot partition would be a better idea?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, I didn't faced those complications. My boot.img weighted around 4.5 MB in lzma compression mode. In gzip, it increased to more than 5 mb.
akhbh said:
No, I didn't faced those complications. My boot.img weighted around 4.5 MB in lzma compression mode. In gzip, it increased to more than 5 mb.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Perfect.
Which kernel have you based your build on?
streambinder said:
Perfect.
Which kernel have you based your build on?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, I took the GeTux kernel for cori, had to change the board name though and then compile it. CWM was booting even before changing the board name but there was no reaction from the phone on trying to boot cm9/cm11
And after changing board name, a black screen on trying to boot
Another info: When tried to merge cori source into the bcm21553 common one, it did compile but gave bootloop of GT-S5300 logo on trying to boot as well as when trying to go in CWM.
Bieltv.3 recommended to use cori source instead of the bcm21553 common one so we used cori sources
akhbh said:
Well, I took the GeTux kernel for cori, had to change the board name though and then compile it. CWM was booting even before changing the board name but there was no reaction from the phone on trying to boot cm9/cm11
And after changing board name, a black screen on trying to boot
Another info: When tried to merge cori source into the bcm21553 common one, it did compile but gave bootloop of GT-S5300 logo on trying to boot as well as when trying to go in CWM.
Bieltv.3 recommended to use cori source instead of the bcm21553 common one so we used cori sources
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I suggest to use our Kernel sources for now, too: it will automatically bypass few errors/issues/bootloops that we cannot now fight with.
The most important thing is to make INIT working from sources (hope it will be working
on my CM9 sources, too) and check that every our configuration is correctly working and
making Cori boot into recovery.
Once we'll make it perfectly working without any kind of issue, will be the right time to try
to make Cori supported with the BC21553-common kernel.
streambinder said:
I suggest to use our Kernel sources for now, too: it will automatically bypass few errors/issues/bootloops that we cannot now fight with.
The most important thing is to make INIT working from sources (hope it will be working
on my CM9 sources, too) and check that every our configuration is correctly working and
making Cori boot into recovery.
Once we'll make it perfectly working without any kind of issue, will be the right time to try
to make Cori supported with the BC21553-common kernel.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Okay, I will use your kernel sources and try if something is changed once I reach home. For now, I neither have this device nor a PC, as I'm in another city.
Will be keenly watching your work. Will start after reaching home around the end of September
akhbh said:
Okay, I will use your kernel sources and try if something is changed once I reach home. For now, I neither have this device nor a PC, as I'm in another city.
Will be keenly watching your work. Will start after reaching home around the end of September
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No problem, mate.
Here you have every source in my possession:
platform_kernel_samsung_cori
platform_device_samsung_cori
Keep in contact with me, as I will need some informations by you.
Anyway I'm now making another build, keeping some not so much important binaries excluded, so that I can make the compiled boot.img fill into our little Cori's boot partition. I know it's a dirty workaround, but if it works, I'll use it untill @psyke83 will suggest me a better way to do.
streambinder said:
No problem, mate.
Here you have every source in my possession:
platform_kernel_samsung_cori | github.com
platform_device_samsung_cori
Keep in contact with me, as I will need some informations by you.
Anyway I'm now making another build, keeping some not so much important binaries excluded, so that I can make the compiled boot.img fill into our little Cori's boot partition. I know it's a dirty workaround, but if it works, I'll use it untill @psyke83 will suggest me a better way to do.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
have u tried to build cwm v6 from cm9 source ??
cleverior.ipul said:
have u tried to build cwm v6 from cm9 source ??
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Of course, mate. I'm working on it, right now.
It doesn't seem to boot, strange if the same INIT binary sources are working for @akhbh.
#UPDATE
In order to troubleshoot, I'll give you some info.
For his build I used these sources:
platform_kernel_samsung_cori
platform_device_samsung_cori
android_device_samsung_bcm21553-common
Applied some lines on our bcm21553-bootimg.mk, too, in order to exclude parted and mke2fs and make the compiled boot.img weigh less.
@cleverior.ipul, can you link me your kernel sources, as akhbh said he used your ones for CM11.
@akhbh, which modifies have you applied in order to compile CWM based on CM11 code? Which device tree?
#UPDATE 2
Attached my compiled boot.img.
If anyone of you would extract it (you can easily use this tool: bootimgtools - read how to use it in the README) and make a diff with the CM11 one (just extract the ramdisk of both boot.imgs and - in the terminal - use this command: diff -urN /path/to/cm9/ramdisk /path/to/cm11/ramdisk > diff.patch), would make to me a huge favour.
Let me know.
streambinder said:
Of course, mate. I'm working on it, right now.
It doesn't seem to boot, strange if the same INIT binary sources are working for @akhbh.
#UPDATE
In order to troubleshoot, I'll give you some info.
For his build I used these sources:
platform_kernel_samsung_cori
platform_device_samsung_cori
android_device_samsung_bcm21553-common
Applied some lines on our bcm21553-bootimg.mk, too, in order to exclude parted and mke2fs and make the compiled boot.img weigh less.
@cleverior.ipul, can you link me your kernel sources, as akhbh said he used your ones for CM11.
@akhbh, which modifies have you applied in order to compile CWM based on CM11 code? Which device tree?
#UPDATE 2
Attached my compiled boot.img.
If anyone of you would extract it (you can easily use this tool: bootimgtools - read how to use it in the README) and make a diff with the CM11 one (just extract the ramdisk of both boot.imgs and - in the terminal - use this command: diff -urN /path/to/cm9/ramdisk /path/to/cm11/ramdisk > diff.patch), would make to me a huge favour.
Let me know.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think we didn't had significant changes. Perhaps the same as totoro. But, that resulted in the internal_sd not mounting error in cwm.
Sadly, as said before, I am away from my home city and can't provide the files to you and can't do the boot.img diffs as well
Try to ask psyke83, he might have a solution for that
akhbh said:
I think we didn't had significant changes. Perhaps the same as totoro. But, that resulted in the internal_sd not mounting error in cwm.
Sadly, as said before, I am away from my home city and can't provide the files to you and can't do the boot.img diffs as well
Try to ask psyke83, he might have a solution for that
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then, if you didn't make any massive change upon the sources, then I'll only try using your kernel.
Can you give me your kernel sources, mate, please?
streambinder said:
Then, if you didn't make any massive change upon the sources, then I'll only try using your kernel.
Can you give me your kernel sources, mate, please?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Currently, I can provide you the boot.img only. For the sources, @cleverior.ipul can provide the kernel sources coz as said earlier, his kernel is used. Well, we were working together to bring cm11 but weren't successful
akhbh said:
Currently, I can provide you the boot.img only. For the sources, @cleverior.ipul can provide the kernel sources.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok, please send it to me, will compare it with my package.
streambinder said:
Ok, please send it to me, will compare it with my package.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Here it is:
http://www.4shared.com/zip/1nKFbOJ2ba/ccccGetux_CM11.html
streambinder said:
Of course, mate. I'm working on it, right now.
It doesn't seem to boot, strange if the same INIT binary sources are working for @akhbh.
#UPDATE
In order to troubleshoot, I'll give you some info.
For his build I used these sources:
platform_kernel_samsung_cori
platform_device_samsung_cori
android_device_samsung_bcm21553-common
Applied some lines on our bcm21553-bootimg.mk, too, in order to exclude parted and mke2fs and make the compiled boot.img weigh less.
@cleverior.ipul, can you link me your kernel sources, as akhbh said he used your ones for CM11.
@akhbh, which modifies have you applied in order to compile CWM based on CM11 code? Which device tree?
#UPDATE 2
Attached my compiled boot.img.
If anyone of you would extract it (you can easily use this tool: bootimgtools - read how to use it in the README) and make a diff with the CM11 one (just extract the ramdisk of both boot.imgs and - in the terminal - use this command: diff -urN /path/to/cm9/ramdisk /path/to/cm11/ramdisk > diff.patch), would make to me a huge favour.
Let me know.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
here the link source https://github.com/cleverior/android_kernel_samsung_cori
i've changed the board name. If your device can not boot after using the zImage from this source, then rename init.bcm21553.rc to init.gt-s5300.rc.
@streambinder, what is grom? As bieltv.3 said that init built grom for cori is required to fix adb over cwm recovery. If adb gets working, then possibly the black screen while booting cm11 might get fixed
akhbh said:
@streambinder, what is grom? As bieltv.3 said that init built grom for cori is required to fix adb over cwm recovery. If adb gets working, then possibly the black screen while booting cm11 might get fixed
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sincerely don't what are you talking about.
Anyway, have to try to understand where's the problem with the not-booting CWM.
Will try with your sources and let you know.
Related
hy all
this is an project starter for android 3.4 kernel development for all msm7x30 mogami devices
sources are hosted on
https://github.com/freexperia/android_kernel_semc_msm7x30
br
J
Project Status
- we got initial branch after diffing lost of branches
M7630AABBQMLZA203029A
https://www.codeaurora.org/gitweb/q...it;h=4b2b84c6a0b6d29864e982a7aecc223acfd2eaa1
forked to our git and with mogami patches aplied
https://github.com/freexperia/android_kernel_semc_msm7x30/tree/M7630AABBQMLZA203029A
latest CAF tag for 7630 not usefull for now
https://www.codeaurora.org/xwiki/bin/QAEP/release
"November 16, 2012 M7630AABBQMLZA40701070 - msm7630 - M7630AABBQMLZA40701070.xml - 04.01.02" android 4.1
ETA
depending on problems and developers that will join
from 6 months to NEVER
This is a bold task. Perhaps you could look at the developments of irii-soft (and some others), they have replaced some crap Sony-specific code with generic wrappers. Main obstacle if I remember is memory maps now, there was an issue with partition maps but ATAG can be easily over-ridden via kernel command-line.
Getting it to boot should be trivial, sound and video will be difficult, and RIL may be never working due to lack of sources. Regardless, all the best. When I have more time I plan to help irii with his work on a "generic" 2.x kernel newer than what we have (because 3.x seems outrageous at this point).
Is there a wiki, a forum or something like that lists all the non-standard things that have already been found ? (some base of work to do)
Boudin said:
Is there a wiki, a forum or something like that lists all the non-standard things that have already been found ? (some base of work to do)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Easy to do yourself - download official SEMC kernel source and diff it with the same version of the linux baseline kernel. So to port to newer kernel you can isolate or "extract" the specific code that has been added and changed, and merge or "inject" that into a newer kernel. Easier said than done though, there are massive changes even in linux kernel revisions (0.0.x.0) - let alone alone new majors and minors (x.x.0.0).
There wouldn't be a wiki or anything of this research, because documenting it all would take an unrealistic amount of labor. Considering there are only a small handful of developers capable of it, there's no point. Besides, that's what GitHub and commit logs are for.
To FXP team,
I don't know if you know or not or even got this far in the development stage but I just wanted to point out a couple of things which may or may not help you...
So with the 3.4 kernel brings newer WiFi drivers which will give a better connection signal on wpa2 security but you might find that devices won't be able to connect to open security networks and WiFi hotspot will probably be broken. I'm posting this as on my gnex using custom kernel (FrancoFransico) he incorporated the 3.4 WiFi drivers a few times and broken hotspot and not being able to use open security WiFi networks were repeatedly reported problems.
I think it may be something hardware specific which allows these features to work on the 3.4 WiFi drivers specific to the nexus 4? You may have more luck trying the 3.0.xx WiFi drivers and getting those to work fully.
Best of luck to you guys!
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus
I'm pretty sure wifi is way down on the priority list, not to be rude but really - who cares about that now. Priority list would be like this:
(1) Get it to boot
(2) Fix primary/critical hardware-specific code for msm7k and qcom platform (display, audio)
(3) Fix RIL
(4) Fix secondary hardware (sensors, bluetooth, wifi)
One step at a time. Getting wifi will probably be trivial because bcm sources are part of the mainline kernel.
With that said, I'm unsubscribing from this thread now. There is massive work to be done and I can see this thread is just going to be filled with posts that have nothing to do with actual development.
All non-dev related posts, and especially "Thank You" posts, will be deleted without further notice. If I have to delete 5 pages of useless posts again, this thread will be locked.
Thank you!
We have tried for a long time already (as you may already know).
https://github.com/adridu59/semc-msm-3.4/commits/master
https://github.com/adridu59/semc-msm-2.6.35
https://github.com/adridu59/android-msm-2.6.35
https://github.com/ExPeacer/CAF_android-msm-3.0/commits/master
https://github.com/ExPeacer/CAF_android-msm-2.6.32
Have fun with it anyways.
adridu59 said:
We have tried for a long time already (as you may already know).
https://github.com/adridu59/semc-msm-3.4/commits/master
https://github.com/adridu59/semc-msm-2.6.35
https://github.com/adridu59/android-msm-2.6.35
https://github.com/ExPeacer/CAF_android-msm-3.0/commits/master
https://github.com/ExPeacer/CAF_android-msm-2.6.32
Have fun with it anyways.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Whats the progress so far on this? Bootable already?
CosmicDan said:
Easy to do yourself - download official SEMC kernel source and diff it with the same version of the linux baseline kernel. So to port to newer kernel you can isolate or "extract" the specific code that has been added and changed, and merge or "inject" that into a newer kernel. Easier said than done though, there are massive changes even in linux kernel revisions (0.0.x.0) - let alone alone new majors and minors (x.x.0.0).
There wouldn't be a wiki or anything of this research, because documenting it all would take an unrealistic amount of labor. Considering there are only a small handful of developers capable of it, there's no point. Besides, that's what GitHub and commit logs are for.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was asked by some user of this forum to give some kernel porting guidelines in this thread, so let me introduce myself first. I'm the developer of 3.0.x kernel for Samsung Galaxy Spica (also several other projects for Spica and Galaxy Apollo/Galaxy 3) and currently also Linux kernel developer at Samsung Poland R&D Center. Porting the kernel for Spica was a difficult task, because of poor quality of original kernel code, which required rewriting from scratch most of it, but it was very educational.
It's not easy to give advice, but I'd say that taking all the differences from clean kernel and applying all of that on top of newer version is what should be avoided. Of course those differences should be collected to see what was changed by the manufacturer, but this should be only used for further analysis, not as a ready code.
Another thing, rather than using the mainline Linux kernel to compare your phone sources with, it should be better to use Android kernel from Google's kernel/common tree (see https://www.codeaurora.org/gitweb/quic/la/?p=kernel/common.git;a=summary for older version archive) bumped to the same minor version using minor patches (found on kernel.org) or, possibly even better way, by pulling appropriate version tag from kernel.org git on top of proper branch of Android kernel tree. This will elminate Google's changes (that would be already available in your new base - android-3.4 branch of kernel/common) from the diff.
For getting the diff, I would personally also use Git. If you create a branch in your working tree which contains Android kernel in the version corresponding to your device kernel (using the way I described in previous paragraph), then copying your device kernel sources onto your working tree (remember to make distclean both trees to remove any compiled/generated files) will allow you to see the differences using git status and git diff. (See http://gitimmersion.com/ if you want to learn more about Git.)
Now it's important to split the changes into logically separate parts, for example core changes in arch/arm/mach-whatever_suitable_for_your_device, adding of particular drivers in drivers/, sound/ and include/, modifications to core kernel code in any other directories. It's essential to check whether all the changes are really required or not and why, because minimalizing the set of changes required to be replayed on top of your new base kernel sources will simplify your work.
After collecting all the changes, it's the time to apply them on top of your new kernel sources. All the changes should be applied one by one, checking how much the component that is being touched has changed since your old kernel and adjusting the changes properly. After applying each change, it should be verified that the kernel at least compiles, although it would be even better if you could get the kernel without any (or almost any) modification to boot to some state, e.g. showing something on the console (any chance to get access to serial console on your device?), and then check if it still boots after applying each next change.
Some links that might be useful:
- Linux cross reference, for comfortable reading of kernel code - http://lxr.linux.no/+trees
- Linux Device Drivers, a book about kernel programming - http://lwn.net/Kernel/LDD3/
- Git Immersion, a great Git tutorial - http://gitimmersion.com/
- Android kernel/common repository with full archive - https://www.codeaurora.org/gitweb/quic/la/?p=kernel/common.git;a=summary
- Linux stable repository, with all version tags - http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git;a=summary
Hopefully what I wrote will be helpful in your project. Good luck and best regards.
Hey tom3q,
thanks a lot for leaving some useful statements here!
tom3q said:
Another thing, rather than using the mainline Linux kernel to compare your phone sources with, it should be better to use Android kernel from Google's kernel/common tree (see https://www.codeaurora.org/gitweb/quic/la/?p=kernel/common.git;a=summary for older version archive) bumped to the same minor version using minor patches (found on kernel.org) or, possibly even better way, by pulling appropriate version tag from kernel.org git on top of proper branch of Android kernel tree.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I digged for some base kernel for a while.
Found a chromium msm kernel 2.6.32.9 at codeaurora (i know this is not Android).
Anyway, the diff against stock was ~30MB... quite too much.
Like i assumed many basic things are missing as well, so too much to start from.
I guess, i'll step through the other projects... might try 2.6.32-rc8 from the msm tree... just for fun of course :angel:
tom3q said:
After applying each change, it should be verified that the kernel at least compiles, although it would be even better if you could get the kernel without any (or almost any) modification to boot to some state, e.g. showing something on the console (any chance to get access to serial console on your device?), and then check if it still boots after applying each next change.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nice point... i like these hardware hacks and asked about testpoints for UART3 on the Pro mainboard a few days ago.
It's mentioned and so far i got it, initialized in stock kernel as well. Unfortunately no-one seems to know anything about these testpoints.
Anyway i don't want to spam this thread, so thanks for your attention
Regards,
scholbert
hy
scuse my ignorance
but
HOW do you compile an kernel ?
and maybe someone can explain what is the difference between bring-up and port
scholbert said:
Hey tom3q,
thanks a lot for leaving some useful statements here!
I digged for some base kernel for a while.
Found a chromium msm kernel 2.6.32.9 at codeaurora (i know this is not Android).
Anyway, the diff against stock was ~30MB... quite too much.
Like i assumed many basic things are missing as well, so too much to start from.
I guess, i'll step through the other projects... might try 2.6.32-rc8 from the msm tree... just for fun of course :angel:
Nice point... i like these hardware hacks and asked about testpoints for UART3 on the Pro mainboard a few days ago.
It's mentioned and so far i got it, initialized in stock kernel as well. Unfortunately no-one seems to know anything about these testpoints.
Anyway i don't want to spam this thread, so thanks for your attention
Regards,
scholbert
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
FXP said:
hy
scuse my ignorance
but
HOW do you compile an kernel ?
and maybe someone can explain what is the difference between bring-up and port
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would say that porting is moving and correcting sources from 2.6.32 kernel in our case into 3.x. And bring up is writing particular drivers from scratch?
Sent from my Nexus 7
voyteckst said:
I would say that porting is moving and correcting sources from 2.6.32 kernel in our case into 3.x. And bring up is writing particular drivers from scratch?
Sent from my Nexus 7
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ok
nice explanation
look on first page
diff is 5mb on proper tag
pushed on github
nice to see so many developers trying to help
FXP said:
diff is 5mb on proper tag
pushed on github
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry to throw my 3 cents again, but seeing the repository on github, I'd recommend you to use some time to go through Git Immersion. Even if it takes some time, it will simplify your further work, as Git used properly can really make many things easier.
Otherwise, the diff itself looks mostly fine as a starting point, although some of the differences can be probably eliminated.
tom3q said:
Sorry to throw my 3 cents again, but seeing the repository on github, I'd recommend you to use some time to go through Git Immersion. Even if it takes some time, it will simplify your further work, as Git used properly can really make many things easier.
Otherwise, the diff itself looks mostly fine as a starting point, although some of the differences can be probably eliminated.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
sony added too many changes to be usefull
since there are several api changes on 32->3.x diff is no good
we have to start from clean board-7x30 and populate devices porting drivers 1 by 1
we have to try an device bringup based on sony changes
Hello,
Developers, I really need help to get the ubuntu-touch port working again!
After the first release of Ubuntu-Touh I tried to port it again to our devices, but I don't get them booting. I only get a black screen. I have updated all sources on github and made the appropriate changes. You can find all relevant sources and information on my new website http://danwin.github.io/ubuntu-touch.html where I have uploaded the non-bootng builds for developers.
I still have the old builds available for those, who want a booting ubuntu-touch, but without any functionality: http://danwin.github.io/ubuntu-touch.html
it is so laggy on mini Dude :/
screenshot please
rod555 said:
screenshot please
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
there is already a video available, but I have made some Photos of my Neo V, sorry for bad quality: http://ubuntuone.com/6keWFpFBG0kEsVF7mBF54D
Can you add the screenshots in the op as pic
slimmer2 said:
Can you add the screenshots in the op as pic
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think this is really necessary, as I have a video from kakalko4 embedded there, which has a lot better quality than my screenshots. You can download the zip provided above and unzip the pictures inside, if you really want to see them.
can you make a more understandable guide how to install it because i try to follow your guide and my phone boots to kernel logo and for couple of second phone turns off
MarioJerkovic said:
can you make a more understandable guide how to install it because i try to follow your guide and my phone boots to kernel logo and for couple of second phone turns off
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ok, updated.
You have to created an ext4 partition with CWM of another kernel or Linux and flashed then my kernel to use the ext4 partition on your SD-Card as /data, because ubuntu is to big for the internal storage. Have you really done that step?
DanWin1210 said:
ok, updated.
You have to created an ext4 partition with CWM of another kernel or Linux and flashed then my kernel to use the ext4 partition on your SD-Card as /data, because ubuntu is to big for the internal storage. Have you really done that step?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yep done it and working ubuntu is working it lags a lot :/ but i dont care i am happy that we got Ubuntu on our old devices
I take it this a the same one as we already have? (crappy demo with no gsm)
replicant101 said:
I take it this a the same one as we already have? (crappy demo with no gsm)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For now yes, but hopefully officiallysonyrebel can make the kernel patches in one or two days available, so I can rebuild all images to make the daily builds of ubuntu booting, which have a lot of improvements.
Kernel patches related to what? I can help out. And I remember officiallysontrebel saying that he doesnt know much about kernels on the ray thread that was removed.
emwno said:
Kernel patches related to what? I can help out. And I remember officiallysontrebel saying that he doesnt know much about kernels on the ray thread that was removed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The daily images of ubuntu aren't booting and officiallysonyrebel said that this is related to some kernel patches that have to be made, you can PM him and ask if you can help him with patching, so we can make the daily images also booting, which have a lot improvements in stability and usability.
DanWin1210 said:
The daily images of ubuntu aren't booting and officiallysonyrebel said that this is related to some kernel patches that have to be made, you can PM him and ask if you can help him with patching, so we can make the daily images also booting, which have a lot improvements in stability and usability.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thats strange.... It cant be kernel related, if you had added the new configs to the source code. It could be with the lastest CM10.1 changes for the 2011 devices. Take a look at http://github.com/cm42semc , here you will find the latest commits. I say this because if there was a problem with the Ubuntu Images, i.e something new needed to be added to get the build to boot, then it wouldn't boot on my n7100 either (as i made the same changes as prescribed on the guide). Either way its just a hunch. Give it a go.
With kernel patches, can performance be addressed?
emwno said:
thats strange.... It cant be kernel related, if you had added the new configs to the source code. It could be with the lastest CM10.1 changes for the 2011 devices. Take a look at http://github.com/cm42semc , here you will find the latest commits. I say this because if there was a problem with the Ubuntu Images, i.e something new needed to be added to get the build to boot, then it wouldn't boot on my n7100 either (as i made the same changes as prescribed on the guide). Either way its just a hunch. Give it a go.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm already using these sources and the daily images only get a black screen. A lot of other people report the same issue for their devices (not Xperia), too. You can have a lock at my changes on https://github.com/DanWin and maybe you find the mistake I made, if I made any.
replicant101 said:
With kernel patches, can performance be addressed?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe, but the daily builds of ubuntu have a lot better performance and stability than the mwc-demo image, which is currently the only booting version.
DanWin1210 said:
I'm already using these sources and the daily images only get a black screen. A lot of other people report the same issue for their devices (not Xperia), too. You can have a lock at my changes on https://github.com/DanWin and maybe you find the mistake I made, if I made any.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, others did have a blackscreen, even the n7100 users did. But some, including myself got it to boot.
This is what I did:
1. Wipe system / data / dalvik
2. install device part
3. install ubuntu image
NOTE: You made a new partition on the sdcard where ubuntu was to be installed. I recommend you to WIpe your sdcard, create a new partition and try again. Also try with try flashing with a different recovery / kernel then flashing the ubuntu kenrel in the end. Sometimes recoveries mess up.
Thx for the job but i had some problemes with the ARc S when i flash the Ubuntu systeme it's abortes whith the statu 0 what i have to do ?
d4k-pho3nix said:
Thx for the job but i had some problemes with the ARc S when i flash the Ubuntu systeme it's abortes whith the statu 0 what i have to do ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Normally status 0 means success, can you go in CWM to advanced -> show log and enter the output of this here, maybe I can help you.
FEEL FREE TO DONATE US FOR ALL WE'RE DOING FOR YOU!
For general discussions, bug reports and FAQ, write HERE!
Credits:
MoltenMotherBoard team!
Downloads:
TWRP Recovery | Code.Google
Full sources:
MoltenMotherBoard sources: MoltenMotherBoard | Github
CyanogenMod sources: CyanogenMod | Github
Kernel: lge-kernel-p880 | Github
Changelog:
20131126
Fixed partition table
Code updates from TWRP, Google
20131120
First release
Issues:
Do you want to report an issue? Do it here!
In order to do it, create a new issue, choosing correct labels corrisponding to: Device/OS which you're using, ROM/project you're on, kind of issue.
Also, please, be sure you're running the ROM/project in the exact way we've provided it to you (do not create issues if you're using different
kernel, mod, plugins and dependencies we didn't tell to use).
General Questions: MoltenMotherBoard Projects | General Questions and Info
Official Mantainer(s): Mackief, ItachiSama, p4c0
Installation guide:
[Method 1° ~ fastboot]
Code:
$ adb reboot oem-unlock
$ fastboot flash recovery /PATH-TO-THE-IMG-FOLDER-ON-YOUR-COMPUTER/twrp.img
$ fastboot reboot
[Method 2° ~ adb] (put the recovery.img in your sdcard)
Code:
$ adb shell
$ su
# cat /sdcard/twrp.img > /dev/block/mmcblk0p1
# sync
# exit
$ exit
---------- Post added at 09:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:43 PM ----------
I know you already have a 2.6.3.0 TWRP recovery, but it's based on 4.4 OMNI Android source code, and it's still in work-in-progress. This means, I'll keep it up-to-date with mainline sources.
Anyway, it would be appreciated if you report bugs here, so that I can check them!
"I know you already have a 2.6.3.0 TWRP recovery, but it's based on 4.4 OMNI Android source code, and it's still in work-in-progress. This means, I'll keep it up-to-date with mainline sources."
what does it mean ? Is 4.4 OMNI Android source code bad ? What did you use ? Whay is it better for us ?
EB20XY said:
"I know you already have a 2.6.3.0 TWRP recovery, but it's based on 4.4 OMNI Android source code, and it's still in work-in-progress. This means, I'll keep it up-to-date with mainline sources."
what does it mean ? Is 4.4 OMNI Android source code bad ? What did you use ? Whay is it better for us ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It means it this versions supports Android4.4-based roms flashing.
It also means that it will be updated by the team.
Obviously, the team is doing a great work, why shouldn't it have done it?
Error or not? I wanted to make a backup copy of a recovery, and it turned out that there is no choice where to save it! Neither the internal memory card or an external card!
negativman said:
Error or not? I wanted to make a backup copy of a recovery, and it turned out that there is no choice where to save it! Neither the internal memory card or an external card!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Don't understand. What are you meaning?
mackief said:
Don't understand. What are you meaning?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I go into recovery, make a backup copy. Click "Backup", in the center of a blank window, and there is nowhere to select the item to save a backup (internal or external sdcard).
negativman said:
I go into recovery, make a backup copy. Click "Backup", in the center of a blank window, and there is nowhere to select the item to save a backup (internal or external sdcard).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
OK. I'll check!
Think it's almost important for you to read this post: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=47827005&postcount=11
mackief said:
It means it this versions supports Android4.4-based roms flashing.
It also means that it will be updated by the team.
Obviously, the team is doing a great work, why shouldn't it have done it?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
what is exactly is the difference for kitkat ? Are the partitions different ?
EB20XY said:
what is exactly is the difference for kitkat ? Are the partitions different ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nope. At recovery-level, the biggest differencies are in the binary commands, then in Edify scripts.
Nothing relevant, but if you wanna flash a KitKat rom, you HAVE to use a 'KitKat' recovery!
mackief said:
Think it's almost important for you to read this post: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=47827005&postcount=11
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And where can I download it? Discovered the mistake about which I spoke to you?
negativman said:
And where can I download it? Discovered the mistake about which I spoke to you?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It should be a still-working-on broken feature by team.
It's a early recovery port, as the team is still making its own modifies on 4.4 code.
BTW, today I should release newer build
negativman said:
And where can I download it? Discovered the mistake about which I spoke to you?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok, I was wrong. That's an issue caused by the fact that TWRP doesn't support fstab v2 - the partition table - and, as our device tree is using this version of table, TWRP didn't load our partition and couldn't backup anything.
Just released new build of CWM.
Changelog:
Fixed partition table
Code updates from TWRP, Google
Follow us on Google+, Facebook & Twitter!
Cheers.
I have a few questions. They apply both to this and CWM.
Why have another build of both recoveries? I still understand TWRP, but @laufersteppenwolf has a released touch version of CWM. Why would anyone use a non-touch version?
The above doesn't apply if these builds have something special. If there is any, update the OP with the features list.
If #2 applies, you should share your sources.
Restore commit history as soon as you can here and in other device folder repos. Original creators deserve the credit. Also, rename the branch from cm9, it's misleading. If somebody tried to build CM9 with that branch, they surely couldn't.
What flags do you use for building TWRP? I don't see any in BoardConfig.mk.
What kernel sources do you use? Even if you didn't change anything in kernel source, put a link to the source you used in the OP.
Adam77Root said:
I have a few questions. They apply both to this and CWM.
Why have another build of both recoveries? I still understand TWRP, but @laufersteppenwolf has a released touch version of CWM. Why would anyone use a non-touch version?
The above doesn't apply if these builds have something special. If there is any, update the OP with the features list.
If #2 applies, you should share your sources.
Restore commit history as soon as you can here and in other device folder repos. Original creators deserve the credit. Also, rename the branch from cm9, it's misleading. If somebody tried to build CM9 with that branch, they surely couldn't.
What flags do you use for building TWRP? I don't see any in BoardConfig.mk.
What kernel sources do you use? Even if you didn't change anything in kernel source, put a link to the source you used in the OP.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, they're based on 4.4 . No new features, nothing new.
Then, my device tree with CM9 has nothing to do with these recoveries; of course I'll add kernel sources and so on.
---------- Post added at 08:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:46 PM ----------
Just updated OP and sources. Thanks for the report.
@Adam77Root is right, posting 2 equal projects is not only useless, but it could also be counted as spamming the forum (please don't get me wrong, it's the mod in me speaking ATM, not the person )
If you want to, I can give you access to my thread so we both can use it. I guess that'd be a win-win situation for everyone then
So, what do you say?
laufersteppenwolf said:
@Adam77Root is right, posting 2 equal projects is not only useless, but it could also be counted as spamming the forum (please don't get me wrong, it's the mod in me speaking ATM, not the person )
If you want to, I can give you access to my thread so we both can use it. I guess that'd be a win-win situation for everyone then
So, what do you say?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nope, don't worry! If you think it's a problem, don't worry. Close my doubled threads! It's not a problem!
mackief said:
Nope, don't worry! If you think it's a problem, don't worry. Close my doubled threads! It's not a problem!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You know, that's exactly the problem/difficulty of being a mod in his own section
I personally do not have a problem with it, but if someone wants to, he can see it as spamming, which could get you in trouble some time.
So I usually try to avoid such situations as soon as possible
So all in all it's your call. I have no problem giving you access to my thread, so we both can keep on deving on it, but it would be less work for both of us if we'd share it. (which I actually could use ATM )
So you tell me what you want to do
UnityROM-2 v.2.5.0
*****Discontinued.... No way to test actively till I have a functional build.*****
HTC One M7 Sprint Edition ( m7spr )
Development Section...
Want to contribute to the project or become team member?
Contact Me by PM here or leave a post detailing what you can and are willing to do for the projects' advancement.
My Github: https://github.com/LiquidSmokeX64
All current project sources can be found there .
ALSO MY FOOL-PROOF BUILD GUIDE & SCRIPTS ARE THERE FOR THOSE TOO IMPATIENT TO WAIT FOR MY NEXT RELEASE .
**Sources current as of version 2.5.0**
**10/06/2014**
Direct link to guide:
https://github.com/LiquidSmokeX64/Guides-Scripts
Note: Noob Friendly. If you're new to building ROMs or have never done it at all. I will help for as long as you maintain civility and focus on the project goals.
Installation errors out. Here is a pastebin of log saved after error
http://pastebin.com/fz15gwwn
Edit: I was able to install after removing that set perm line from updater. I will let ya know how it goes.
gruesomewolf said:
Installation errors out. Here is a pastebin of log saved after error
http://pastebin.com/fz15gwwn
Edit: I was able to install after removing that set perm line from updater. I will let ya know how it goes.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok. I just removed it too. My bad adaptation from Evo LTE. Nothing too bad luckily.
Reuploading the fixed version now.
LiquidSmokeX64 said:
Ok. I just removed it too. My bad adaptation from Evo LTE. Nothing too bad luckily.
Reuploading the fixed version now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Seems to be running very well, once I got past that installation error....
Nice and smooth, especially with my aosp kernel...
gruesomewolf said:
Seems to be running very well, once I got past that installation error....
Nice and smooth, especially with my aosp kernel...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So. You're a kernel dev... Got a question for you. How do I add more CFLAGS to the makefile without it not booting or whatever? I've tried adding -O3 to the 2 places I know to put CFLAGS. Same place I put the -w so it would work with GCC 4.8
gruesomewolf said:
Seems to be running very well, once I got past that installation error....
Nice and smooth, especially with my aosp kernel...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Will you be releasing this kernel for the Evo 4G? [emoji14] Evo4gnoob here
LiquidSmokeX64 said:
So. You're a kernel dev... Got a question for you. How do I add more CFLAGS to the makefile without it not booting or whatever? I've tried adding -O3 to the 2 places I know to put CFLAGS. Same place I put the -w so it would work with GCC 4.8
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wouldn't say Im a kernel dev....more of a dabler...lol. I sent you a pm with my makefile so you can see adjustments I made for my kernels latest build (not yet publicly released)
Notorious said:
Will you be releasing this kernel for the Evo 4G? [emoji14] Evo4gnoob here
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Umm....no I dont have any plans for that ATM
gruesomewolf said:
I wouldn't say Im a kernel dev....more of a dabler...lol. I sent you a pm with my makefile so you can see adjustments I made for my kernels latest build (not yet publicly released)
Umm....no I dont have any plans for that ATM
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Was joking lol
Notorious said:
Was joking lol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So you're allowing the integration of it? Just to be clear.
So I'm not sure why but the kernel borked again. Maybe I need to go through one flag at a time? Or maybe forgot something....?
gruesomewolf said:
Seems to be running very well, once I got past that installation error....
Nice and smooth, especially with my aosp kernel...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hey. Im having nothing but issues building it in the ROM so I was curious if you could tell me what I need to do after copying the msm8960 folder to a new place and adding in the makefile changes? Ive never built a kernel independently before but would like it to be a boot.img like normal so I can just replace the one in the ROM zip with the new one. Im sure it's pretty easy, just figured I'd ask you rather than comb through 80 guides saying different stuff lol.
LiquidSmokeX64 said:
Hey. Im having nothing but issues building it in the ROM so I was curious if you could tell me what I need to do after copying the msm8960 folder to a new place and adding in the makefile changes? Ive never built a kernel independently before but would like it to be a boot.img like normal so I can just replace the one in the ROM zip with the new one. Im sure it's pretty easy, just figured I'd ask you rather than comb through 80 guides saying different stuff lol.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Could you pm me with more info. Exact process of building, errors during build, any changes made to source, etc.
I'm gonna download your source later, together we should be able to figure this out.
gruesomewolf said:
Could you pm me with more info. Exact process of building, errors during build, any changes made to source, etc.
I'm gonna download your source later, together we should be able to figure this out.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not seeing errors. Hell I removed everything but the -O3 spots and it still refused to boot. I dont know what the deal is....
Anytim I do ANYTHING to the kernel its dead, no matter how stupid it is.
gruesomewolf said:
Could you pm me with more info. Exact process of building, errors during build, any changes made to source, etc.
I'm gonna download your source later, together we should be able to figure this out.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
BTW. The makefile is borked. And was curious if you knew how to build AOSP for this device? CM was pretty easy, I'd figure AOSP isn't too different. Then I can try to get Android L running once I have a working Android K to cross-reference to and make the version specific changes in device, kernel, vendor, qcom-common, and s4-common
LiquidSmokeX64 said:
So. You're a kernel dev... Got a question for you. How do I add more CFLAGS to the makefile without it not booting or whatever? I've tried adding -O3 to the 2 places I know to put CFLAGS. Same place I put the -w so it would work with GCC 4.8
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
When certain flags or 03 is added it creates a larger zImage. In order to compensate the boot.img needs needs modified, either by kernel installer or if baked in the rom hex edited. To change the ramdiskaddr.
Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk
thicklizard said:
When certain flags or 03 is added it creates a larger zImage. In order to compensate the boot.img needs needs modified, either by kernel installer or if baked in the rom hex edited. To change the ramdiskaddr.
Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Absolutely correct. And to elaborate on this just a bit more. Since your source building here, you can actually adjust the ramdiskadd with the scripts, considering it uses mkbootimg commands to build the boot.img.
An additional line in your devices board config, to give it a new ramdiskaddr size. Then an additional line in the build folder factory_ramdisk.mk , to handle the command for a new ramdiskaddr size should do the trick.
As for your other question about building aosp. I'm afraid that would be beyond my area of expertise. You would have significantly modify aosp code to allow for caf. It would be much harder then building cm, cause cm already has all the adjustments needed for caf devices
thicklizard said:
When certain flags or 03 is added it creates a larger zImage. In order to compensate the boot.img needs needs modified, either by kernel installer or if baked in the rom hex edited. To change the ramdiskaddr.
Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
gruesomewolf said:
Absolutely correct. And to elaborate on this just a bit more. Since your source building here, you can actually adjust the ramdiskadd with the scripts, considering it uses mkbootimg commands to build the boot.img.
An additional line in your devices board config, to give it a new ramdiskaddr size. Then an additional line in the build folder factory_ramdisk.mk , to handle the command for a new ramdiskaddr size should do the trick.
As for your other question about building aosp. I'm afraid that would be beyond my area of expertise. You would have significantly modify aosp code to allow for caf. It would be much harder then building cm, cause cm already has all the adjustments needed for caf devices
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I read this and my eyes glaze over. But you are in good hands with these two helping you. :highfive:
Yeah I'm working on it guys. Read the integrated kernel building guide and trying that. But if I could just get it to build me the boot.IMG and get my ramdisk sizes and whatever I'm looking at where to edit it in the device/BoardConfig changed the defconfig to a custom one I made based off the original one from the working boot.IMG but changed the I/O scheduler & CPU governed defaults. Gave it a local name (UnityKernel-x.x.x) and am fighting its last issues. So if nothing else help building it independently might be the most useful now. So if nothing else I can push a new boot.img
My bad. It just says the boot partition size so I think I might be almost there
In this post, I would like to explain what kexec-hardboot patch is.
@kernel developers: I would like to ask you to merge this patch to your kernels, because it is essential part of MultiROM - it allows to boot any kernel without changing the boot partition. I realize that it is no small request, but the patch is not big, touches relatively stable parts of kernel and should not cause any problems. Thank you.
What is kexec?
It is syscall of Linux kernel, which allows you to boot another Linux kernel without restarting the device - "Linux boots itself". The functionality is equivalent to fastboot -c *cmdline* boot zImage initrd.img, but without PC and fastboot. It is fairly known thing, so more info at wikipedia and man kexec.
What is the difference between normal and hardboot exec?
Kexec-hardboot patch adds a real device restart to that process, so that all the drivers can be properly reinitialized. It stores new kernel to RAM, reboots the device as usual, and kernel from boot partition immediately jumps to the one which was stored to RAM before reboot.
Unlike grouper's kexec-hardboot patch, this one only requires the host kernel to be patched. This is one of the improvements Tasssadar made, and I think it is pretty significant.
To sumarize the process:
kexec --load-hardboot.... is called and kernel it loaded into RAM.
kexec -e is called. Special info is written to memory (to area which is not overwritten on reboot) and the device is rebooted.
After reboot, very early in the boot process, kernel checks if that special info is present in RAM and if so, it loads new kernel from RAM and jumps to it.
Kexecd' kernel starts and boots.
For more info, read the original thread.
Patches:
Kernel patch: https://gist.github.com/PatrikKT/50faf32e8931d51c0c9a,
This is the kernel patch. Only the host kernel needs to be patched.
Related CONFIG options:
CONFIG_KEXEC=y
CONFIG_KEXEC_HARDBOOT=y
CONFIG_PROC_DEVICETREE=y
CONFIG_ATAGS_PROC=n # This one is turned on automatically, but it is not needed, so you can disable it.
All these options must be enabled.
Userspace kexec binary: https://github.com/Tasssadar/kexec-tools
I had to change some things in kexec userspace binary because of some kernel bugs, complete description is in that repository. You can get statically built binary at https://github.com/Tasssadar/multirom/blob/master/install_zip/prebuilt-installer/multirom/kexec
Usage:
Once you have the kernel patches and kexec userspace binary in place, just run following command to boot into new kernel:
Code:
kexec --load-hardboot zImage --initrd=initrd.img --mem-min=0x20000000 --command-line="$(cat /proc/cmdline)" --dtb
kexec -e
Note the command line parameter - cmdline from bootloader is not added automatically, you have to put it there by yourself.
Authors:
This patch was made by Mike Kasick for Samsung Epic 4G. Since that, it was ported to several devices, one of them is Asus Transformer TF201 - he used patch from TF201 and modified it a bit (basically just changed few SoC specific constants). People at #ubuntu-arm helped him out with that, thanks.
For hammerhead, he has improved the patch a bit - only the host needs to be patched now and he has added support for DTB.
This thread was used as a template Credits to @Tasssadar for his Nexus 5 patch
Awesome people helping with our G2's development. Thank YOU!
patrik.KT said:
I would like to ask you to merge this patch to your kernels, because it is essential part of MultiROM - it allows to boot any kernel without changing the boot partition.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What benefit would there be to non-MultiROM users? (Just curious.)
blastagator said:
What benefit would there be to non-MultiROM users? (Just curious.)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Any. Just any.
Actually I can't think of anything. It's only to bring the device to a full reboot to load a new kernel.
Odoslané z môjho HTC Desire 601
blastagator said:
What benefit would there be to non-MultiROM users? (Just curious.)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not for common user, in epic4g kexec used by kernel devs to test a new kernel build without replace the existing kernel.
They just load a temporary kernel to test. Then that kernel will gone after a reboot.
Hope to see new kernels that support MultiRom! Great work man!
Would this allow a multiboot with AOSP and Stock roms?
AbdulrahmanAmir said:
it doesnt work while i have stock and the secondary is aosp (dU-dirty.unicorn) when i boot the secondary it works sound only but no display just black screen plzz help
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The patch is not necessary at the moment, because of the locked bootloader. It's just for devs to be prepared with their kernel when we can unlock the bootloader, so that multirom will work as it should.
Odoslané z môjho HTC Desire 601
Thanks for your great thread. But there is no instruction about how we can add that patch to kernel source. Could you write more details about implanting this patch?
No response??
mohamaadhosein said:
No response??
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Download the patch file from first post and place it in the kernel root directory. Then you should use this command to check if there are any conflicts: git apply --check <path_to>.patch
If there are no errors, use this to apply: git apply <path_to>.patch
Sorry for the late response but I checked xda when I wasn't home and I forgot to reply when I got home
Odoslané z môjho HTC Desire 601
Hey, some changes need to be made to the patch.
On line 353, change the number from 22 to 21. Also, it has some errors when modifying head.S, which I had to fix manually..
But guys, my kernel is building with the latest multirom. This **** is going to maybe work soon!
I'll keep you all posted.
Thank you man
Guys, I think I've done it. Kexec hardboot patched kernel for 5.1.1 and thus multirom compliant, which I am preparing to build with twrp. this is very exciting.
When will it be ready?
Are you kidding me? No ETAs. I literally haven't even announce it yet and somebody asks for an ETA.... It will be ready once I test everything to boot well on my device.
patrik.KT said:
Download the patch file from first post and place it in the kernel root directory. Then you should use this command to check if there are any conflicts: git apply --check <path_to>.patch
If there are no errors, use this to apply: git apply <path_to>.patch
Sorry for the late response but I checked xda when I wasn't home and I forgot to reply when I got home
Odoslané z môjho HTC Desire 601
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It says the patch is corrupted on the line 375