Related
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
This is not my work this a reply i got from a guy when i posted in the sony developers forum ...I hope someone finds this useful:angel: .And since i m a new user i can post links for some stupid reasons...so i will get creative
by fzort
Kernel source for the Xperia E1 is available as a tarball on the "Xperia open source archives" site. I'm running a custom-built kernel on my Xperia E1 (D2114). I documented what I did here:
[https://
github.com
/mpersano
/xperia-e1-kernel-patches
/blob
/master
/README.md]
https://github.com/mpersano/xperia-e1-kernel-patches/blob/master/README.md
This is for KK or JB4.3?
Since im starting development for this device, idk much and i not read actual progress. @Kizoky you can resume progress for me?
Caio99BR said:
This is for KK or JB4.3?
Since im starting development for this device, idk much and i not read actual progress. @Kizoky you can resume progress for me?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is for KK kernel, but I couldn't not build kernel because I'm still a rookie
Camera drivers exists for MSM8610(Xperia E1's chipset) on sonyxperiadev Github
Recovery exists (you can find PhilZ recovery in this forum)
what is still missing is a working Device tree, and vendor libs (and of course a cm compatible kernel)
Kizoky said:
This is for KK kernel, but I couldn't not build kernel because I'm still a rookie
Camera drivers exists for MSM8610(Xperia E1's chipset) on sonyxperiadev Github
Recovery exists (you can find PhilZ recovery in this forum)
what is still missing is a working Device tree, and vendor libs (and of course a cm compatible kernel)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok, but for now a kernel working in Stock is good, so how i can unpack boot.img?
Enviado de meu E435 (L3 II Dual) usando Tapatalk
Use this:
Zsenyka said:
Use this:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Edited: The Bootloader is locked, so the boot.img is "Encripted", and no way to unpack this, i will unlock this.
Ok, i changed boot.img, now i have CWM from boot, and bootsrap.
I tried to boot it, but this get bootloop, the bootanimation is loaded but bootloop, maybe dt.img.
I cant access dmesg command. @Kizoky any tip?
---------- Post added at 10:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:44 PM ----------
https://github.com/Caio99BR/android_kernel_sony_falconss
Caio99BR said:
Ok, i changed boot.img, now i have CWM from boot, and bootsrap.
I tried to boot it, but this get bootloop, the bootanimation is loaded but bootloop, maybe dt.img.
I cant access dmesg command. @Kizoky any tip?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi! I'm the owner of the github repo mentioned at the top of this thread.
Getting a working ramdisk took me a while. I think that what finally worked was downloading an official firmware image with XperiFirm (you don't even need to wait for it to finish downloading the full image - one of the first files downloaded is the kernel one, containing boot.img), then I extracted boot.img with the unofficial XPERIA flash tool, then extracted the ramdisk. (The kernel command line I used is the same one in the official boot.img, by the way.) As for the device tree image, you can build it from the kernel sources.
Note that boot.img on this phone has a device tree blob appended to the end. I wrote a small script to unpack the official boot.img and compare it to the one that I built and check if I was doing everything right (can't post links as I'm a new user, but it's linked in the README.md file linked above).
I'll try to add more details to those instructions when I have some time (I didn't think anyone else would be interested in building a kernel for this cheap phone ). By the way, I use the E1 with a custom kernel as my main personal phone and it works fine (for a 512M phone), kudos to Sony for not compromising the quality of even their lowest end model.
I think everyone is interested in making this phone better
Since July 2014 we tried porting Cyanogenmod without success, now last year we modified a Moto E ROM and made it work with E1, only the ril is not working
So sad that Sony didn't made this phone even better
So the device tree is located in the ramdisk?
Kizoky said:
I think everyone is interested in making this phone better
Since July 2014 we tried porting Cyanogenmod without success, now last year we modified a Moto E ROM and made it work with E1, only the ril is not working
So sad that Sony didn't made this phone even better
So the device tree is located in the ramdisk?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The device tree is located after the ramdisk in boot.img, but you can build it from the kernel sources provided by Sony. The `msm8610-v2-mtp.dtb` make target will build the device tree blob. Then mkqcdtbootimg will build a boot.img containing kernel + ramdisk + device tree blob. The only thing that you need for this which is not provided by Sony (well, other than more detailed build instructions...) is a ramdisk image, I had to extract it from the stock firmware...
If you want to split boot.img into kernel / ramdisk / device tree, you can use this script: github.com/mpersano/bootimg-tools/blob/master/split-bootimage.py
Good luck!
fzort said:
The device tree is located after the ramdisk in boot.img, but you can build it from the kernel sources provided by Sony. The `msm8610-v2-mtp.dtb` make target will build the device tree blob. Then mkqcdtbootimg will build a boot.img containing kernel + ramdisk + device tree blob. The only thing that you need for this which is not provided by Sony (well, other than more detailed build instructions...) is a ramdisk image, I had to extract it from the stock firmware...
If you want to split boot.img into kernel / ramdisk / device tree, you can use this script: github.com/mpersano/bootimg-tools/blob/master/split-bootimage.py
Good luck!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've been trying to get that script work like ages
Does it require Linux, or just Python?
EDIT: nvm, I figured it out
So is CM for E1 finally possible or just custom kernel?
@fzort @Kizoky i make this booting with the stock dt blob (device tree means the Android Device Tree, and this is totally diff, use "dt blob")
See my changes in https://github.com/Caio99BR/android_kernel_sony_falconss
Ah, only with msm8610-v2-mtp.dtb this works too, i tested after.
("I not reply more earlier because the phone is from my father and yesterday ran out of energy.")
The ramdisks works and dt blobs too.
The screenshot
Caio99BR said:
@fzort @Kizoky i make this booting with the stock dt blob (device tree means the Android Device Tree, and this is totally diff, use "dt blob")
See my changes in https://github.com/Caio99BR/android_kernel_sony_falconss
Ah, only with msm8610-v2-mtp.dtb this works too, i tested after.
("I not reply more earlier because the phone is from my father and yesterday ran out of energy.")
The ramdisks works and dt blobs too.
The screenshot
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I saw you are doing the device part of E1 too
If you need any help just ask me (or tests)
Kizoky said:
I saw you are doing the device part of E1 too
If you need any help just ask me (or tests)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok man, im trying to do kernel fully working (solved problem of dt blobs. We cant pack qrd dt, so comment build of then), and zip easy flashing, but not working at moment, my father will get crazy when him try to play FM Radio.
After i will merge code to a CAF Linux Kernel, so this is more easy to update.
By last finish the Android Device Tree with a E1 Caf Kernel.
I will try to post the custom kernel.
Im thinking in VeeSSKernel (Since my kernel of L3II is VeeKernel), what do you think?
Enviado de meu E435 (L3 II Dual) usando Tapatalk
Caio99BR said:
Ok man, im trying to do kernel fully working (solved problem of dt blobs. We cant pack qrd dt, so comment build of then), and zip easy flashing, but not working at moment, my father will get crazy when him try to play FM Radio.
After i will merge code to a CAF Linux Kernel, so this is more easy to update.
By last finish the Android Device Tree with a E1 Caf Kernel.
I will try to post the custom kernel.
Im thinking in VeeSSKernel (Since my kernel of L3II is VeeKernel), what do you think?
Enviado de meu E435 (L3 II Dual) usando Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Would be really great
We still don't have a custom kernel (only Stock kernel with PhilZ)
I can't wait to see it
Kizoky said:
Would be really great
We still don't have a custom kernel (only Stock kernel with PhilZ)
I can't wait to see it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We have a problem, the TV is not working anymore, idk why
I will check it, we need TV Support working, or i need it, since my father use it
EDIT: The problem is inside kernel or ramdisk.
it's amazing .. Very good work .. Congratulations friends??
racer.z said:
it's amazing .. Very good work .. Congratulations friends����
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
@Kizoky TV is fixed
Edit: THANKS, i forget ever
---------- Post added at 10:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:19 PM ----------
I will try to release tomorrow, since i want to make a new banner, based on my old VeeKernel banner.
For CM i will need to redownload CAF Kernel MSM (since im stupid and overwrited .git in tests).
I will start building TWRP (V3), merging it to stock ramdisk and update to make cwm and twrp side-by-side.
So i have done this in two weeks for make a custom kernel, thanks @fzort
Enviado de meu E435 (L3 II Dual) usando Tapatalk
Keeping it short and simple, this is a source compiled version of TWRP 3.0.2-0 for the HOT-2. I have based it on @Nonta72's device tree with Infinix hardware configs. If this works for you, please report as such so I can get it official. Officially supported device get automatic builds which are made available at dl.twrp.me/<device_codename> at each major release. Thank you.
Download : My Website
XDA:DevDB Information
TWRP for HOT 2, Tool/Utility for the Infinix HOT 2
Contributors
MSF Jarvis, Nonta72
Version Information
Status: Testing
Created 2016-04-13
Last Updated 2016-04-13
MSF Jarvis said:
Keeping it short and simple, this is a source compiled version of TWRP 3.0.2-0 for the HOT-2. I have based it on @Nonta72's device tree with Infinix hardware configs. If this works for you, please report as such so I can get it official.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hey,
Thank you for your courageous work.
Unfortunately the first build didn't seem to work on my device.
If fails to boot to recovery, then reboots straight to OS.
Please note that:
- You need cm-13 branch to compile the newer TWRP (like TWRP 3.0.x)
- If you're compiling a recovery without kernel source code, you need to use the prebuilt kernel from recovery.img, not sure if the kernel from boot.img is the same in recovery.img In my sources, I uploaded the one from boot.img
- Something may be wrong with the source. I will properly check this week-end. I except the device name to be wrong.
Nonta72 said:
Hey,
Thank you for your courageous work.
Unfortunately the first build didn't seem to work on my device.
If fails to boot to recovery, then reboots straight to OS.
Please note that:
- You need cm-13 branch to compile the newer TWRP (like TWRP 3.0.x)
- If you're compiling a recovery without kernel source code, you need to use the prebuilt kernel from recovery.img, not sure if the kernel from boot.img is the same in recovery.img In my sources, I uploaded the one from boot.img
- Something may be wrong with the source. I will properly check this week-end. I except the device name to be wrong.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
- I upstream-patched the tree to cm-13.0 (Atleast for TWRP)
- The kernel's are the same, only the init.rc changes. I'll have to see to that.
- I found d5110_infinix pointless, since you have asserts for d5110 as well, ROMs will pass the device name assert and flash.
MSF Jarvis said:
- I upstream-patched the tree to cm-13.0 (Atleast for TWRP)
- The kernel's are the same, only the init.rc changes. I'll have to see to that.
- I found d5110_infinix pointless, since you have asserts for d5110 as well, ROMs will pass the device name assert and flash.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If boot.img rcs are different from recovery.img ones, then it won't probably boot. But I think the fstab files are the same.
I will add a new branch with recovery rcs on week-end.
Nonta72 said:
If boot.img rcs are different from recovery.img ones, then it won't probably boot. But I think the fstab files are the same.
I will add a new branch with recovery rcs on week-end.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Recovery ones are usually barebones, because boot.img rc's are quite complex, because they have to fix perms on the entire sysfs, set default IO scheduler, CPU Governor and create mount points. Recovery rc's are about 20 lines in the oldie device I maintain along with the LAVA Pixelv1.
Let's work together to get this booting and I'll also get your name on the device page as maintainer
And I usually keep my word.
MSF Jarvis said:
Recovery ones are usually barebones, because boot.img rc's are quite complex, because they have to fix perms on the entire sysfs, set default IO scheduler, CPU Governor and create mount points. Recovery rc's are about 20 lines in the oldie device I maintain along with the LAVA Pixelv1.
Let's work together to get this booting and I'll also get your name on the device page as maintainer
And I usually keep my word.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sure
Let's make it work! :highfive:
Nonta72 said:
Sure
Let's make it work! :highfive:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
New build : http://msfjarvis.me/seedmtk/HOT-2/TWRP/
Not sure this one will boot either, but let's try
MSF Jarvis said:
New build : http://msfjarvis.me/seedmtk/HOT-2/TWRP/
Not sure this one will boot either, but let's try
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The problem persists.
We have a WhatsApp group, you may want to join us by sending over your number (in PM if you wish). That will make exchange faster.
Nonta72 said:
Sure
Let's make it work! :highfive:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
MSF Jarvis said:
New build : http://msfjarvis.me/seedmtk/HOT-2/TWRP/
Not sure this one will boot either, but let's try
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In 15 minutes, there will be twrp-3.0.2-2 available there. If you're interested to see what I did to it, check the commits
This one has logcat enabled as well, so you may wanna help me that way. I don't do WhatsApp, so you may want to hop on to #team-redux on http://webchat.freenode.net rather.
Nonta72 said:
Sure
Let's make it work! :highfive:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Made a typo in BoardConfig, now it's okay. Building now :fingers-crossed:
MSF Jarvis said:
Made a typo in BoardConfig, now it's okay. Building now :fingers-crossed:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nonta72 said:
The problem persists.
We have a WhatsApp group, you may want to join us by sending over your number (in PM if you wish). That will make exchange faster.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Another test build is up : 3.0.2-2
MSF Jarvis said:
Another test build is up : 3.0.2-2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You should probably compare x510 files with sprout8/4 files; because it still doesn't boot ...
Nonta72 said:
You should probably compare x510 files with sprout8/4 files; because it still doesn't boot ...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe I should, but where's the similarity?
MSF Jarvis said:
Maybe I should, but where's the similarity?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I never compared them ...
Since you already compiled TWRP for sprout, I thought it would be easier to compare with x510. :laugh:
Anyways, I did many unsuccessful attempts to port sprout4/8 roms to x510 without success. Both devices are slightly differents.
Nonta72 said:
I never compared them ...
Since you already compiled TWRP for sprout, I thought it would be easier to compare with x510. :laugh:
Anyways, I did many unsuccessful attempts to port sprout4/8 roms to x510 without success. Both devices are slightly differents.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
sprout(4|8) are MT6582 devices, just like the LAVA Pixelv1. I don't know how the x510 ended up with a MT6580 processor
Ah, sadly didn't work for me, it doesn't boot to recovery mode, i already tried "reboot recovery" and "adb reboot recovery" method but didn"t work.. But if i flash twrp 2.8.7.0 it works...
Infinix Hot 2 (16+2 GB version)
RendyAK said:
Ah, sadly didn't work for me, it doesn't boot to recovery mode, i already tried "reboot recovery" and "adb reboot recovery" method but didn"t work.. But if i flash twrp 2.8.7.0 it works...
Infinix Hot 2 (16+2 GB version)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know it isn't booting. Just on a note, your 2.8.7.0 boots? Coz it's just an emulator build, designed to run on the Android Emulator, not an actual device ??
MSF Jarvis said:
sprout(4|8) are MT6582 devices, just like the LAVA Pixelv1. I don't know how the x510 ended up with a MT6580 processor
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because MT6580 is a recent version of the MT6582. Forget the "2" that became "0" at the end. The MT6580 is even faster than the MT6582 and can match some MT6592 (with 1GB RAM). I saw a 33,000+ antutu on a MT6580 (with 2GB RAM) and overclocked (yes! overclocked, idk how but they said so).
MSF Jarvis said:
I know it isn't booting. Just on a note, your 2.8.7.0 boots? Coz it's just an emulator build, designed to run on the Android Emulator, not an actual device ??
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sir, you're talking about the messed up ramdisk. In fact, there are many builds, the one you have seen have many bugs probably because of the messed up rcs.
The only recovery that works good for me is the one made by Ovatek. I made few commits to my github including the fstab file changes you suggested...
Went here http://forum.xda-developers.com/cro...al-android-development/recovery-twrp-t3353364 and have noticed your work on the Lava Pixel. I compared ramdisk of TWRP 3.0.2 for that device and found out that it's just the same as sprout4 and 8!
In fact, the seedmtk is just a "name"; the files are very identical to 1st gen Android One. For example: Both sprout4/8 and Pixel V1 use fstab.sprout in ramdisks.
The Infinix Hot 2 is a whole different story! It doesn't seem to even have a codename LOL In its ramdisk, you find fstab.mt6580 not fstab.sprout (or something alike).
One more thing, if you unpack boot.img of Hot 2 using Carliv Image Kitchen, you get 9 files + ramdisk folder. But if you unpack Pixel V1's boot.img with the same tool, you get 6 files + ramdisk folder.
You can find ALL 2nd Gen Android One devices here on Wikipedia
Nonta72 said:
Went here http://forum.xda-developers.com/cro...al-android-development/recovery-twrp-t3353364 and have noticed your work on the Lava Pixel. I compared ramdisk of TWRP 3.0.2 for that device and found out that it's just the same as sprout4 and 8!
In fact, the seedmtk is just a "name"; the files are very identical to 1st gen Android One. For example: Both sprout4/8 and Pixel V1 use fstab.sprout in ramdisks.
The Infinix Hot 2 is a whole different story! It doesn't seem to even have a codename LOL In its ramdisk, you find fstab.mt6580 not fstab.sprout (or something alike).
One more thing, if you unpack boot.img of Hot 2 using Carliv Image Kitchen, you get 9 files + ramdisk folder. But if you unpack Pixel V1's boot.img with the same tool, you get 6 files + ramdisk folder.
You can find ALL 2nd Gen Android One devices here on Wikipedia
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually speaking, the OEM for the MT6582 device went with naming the device 'sprout', which I vehemently oppose, to avoid confusion. The stock boot.img's ramdisk also contains files according to the 'sprout' nomenclature. I took the sprout4 device tree, updated all *.rc's from the stock marshamallow boot.img and added in a bunch of TWRP flags.
One important thing you most probably already know, Infinix Hot 2 uses a standard MTK boot.img header, while the LAVA Pixelv1 uses an AOSP format, so it can be unpacked using standard tools, while yours requires Carliv's kitchen.
According to Project Treble lead Iliyan Malchev,
Malchev says that Treble standardizes Android hardware support to such a degree that generic Android builds compiled from AOSP can boot and run on every Treble device. In fact, these “raw AOSP” builds are what will be used for some of the CTS testing Google requires all Android OEMs to pass in order to license the Google apps—it’s not just that things should work, they are required to work.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Now that there's an Oreo beta for the Essential Phone that supports Treble, perhaps this can be used to further development on the device.
/u/foremi on Reddit confirmed that simply flashing a Pixel 2 system and boot image to the device is not enough, as it fails to boot, so the question is what constitutes a generic AOSP build?
I don't have Linux installed right now or I'd build it myself, but I suspect that building it with the simple target device of "generic" might be what Malchev is referring to.
If any devs would like to test this theory or give their input as to how they think this actually works I think it'd be incredibly useful for not just Essential phone development, but Android development as a whole.
EDIT: @phhusson confirms that the target device should be aosp_arm64_ab
FWIW "generic AOSP build" is really what it says it is.
I have access to the "Google certification generic AOSP build" (that's weirdly not public, I don't know why), so I gave it a try. (Edit: So if the ROM was Treble-certified, it would work)
I get the Android bootanimation, but that's all (I have to say that's still a big step forward compared to other Android versions
Looking at the logs, I see a loop of crash because of: /vendor/bin/hw/[email protected]
Which I guess is the HAL for the accessories, but that doesn't seem to be the reason for the crash
The reason of the crash, seem to be this:
11-15 12:59:04.491 5331 5331 F MediaProfiles: frameworks/av/media/libmedia/MediaProfiles.cpp:329 CHECK(quality != -1) failed.
in CAF, frameworks/av/media/libmedia/MediaProfiles.cpp we see vendor-specific (i.e. not in AOSP) quality attributes, like "vga"
And it is defined by Essential's framework (in vendor/etc/media_profiles_V1_0.xml)
Considering there are media_profiles xml files, I'd guess that _V1_0 is supposed to only contain AOSP-capable qualities
Edit2: The fingerprint of "certification generic AOSP", is Android/aosp_arm64_ab/generic_arm64_ab:8.0.0/OTR1.171023.001/4412360:userdebug/test-keys
So my guess to build this is that lunch aosp_arm64_ab && make should work
Edit3: the generated fingerprint is too long to build, needs to do make BUILD_NUMBER=4412360
Edit4: To make the situation more clear:
- NO, current ROM is NOT Treble capable
- BUT, almost everything is available for that. Every HAL is using "hwbinder" which is the basis, and most work needed for Treble
Also, I've seen some reddit comment mentioning boot.img.
Current version of Treble only concerns system.img, and NOT boot.img!
Future version are supposed to have generic boot.img as well, but that's not to be expected before at the very least Android P.
phhusson said:
Edit2: The fingerprint of "certification generic AOSP", is Android/aosp_arm64_ab/generic_arm64_ab:8.0.0/OTR1.171023.001/4412360:userdebug/test-keys
So my guess to build this is that lunch aosp_arm64_ab && make should work
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was gonna link to the aosp_arm64 make file but it said it was specifically for the emulator so I wasn't sure, that's good to know though.
phhusson said:
Also, I've seen some reddit comment mentioning boot.img.
Current version of Treble only concerns system.img, and NOT boot.img!
Future version are supposed to have generic boot.img as well, but that's not to be expected before at the very least Android P.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for this, I suspected such but couldn't find a clear answer from Google on the matter so I suggested trying the boot.img as well just in case.
Now, someone has to test this on a different Treble device such as the Pixel or Pixel 2. I'm thinking MAYBE because the Oreo build for essential is just a beta its treble implementation isn't finished and hasn't passed Google's CTS requirements to boot the generic aosp image. Perhaps this will change in the final build.
For what it's worth I only have a LG V20 right now which currently doesn't support Treble, so I'm pretty useless as far as testing anything goes, but if this is figured out it'll greatly influence what device I go with when I eventually upgrade.
Now, someone has to test this on a different Treble device such as the Pixel or Pixel 2.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yup. I feel like Treble deserves its own "device" section in XDA
I'm afraid I'm working on something that other people already did on other devices...
I'm thinking MAYBE because the Oreo build for essential is just a beta its treble implementation isn't finished and hasn't passed Google's CTS requirements to boot the generic aosp image. Perhaps this will change in the final build.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's my guess as well.
Interesting stuff. Excited to hear updates on this. PM me if you make a breakthrough and want a feature
MishaalRahman said:
Interesting stuff. Excited to hear updates on this. PM me if you make a breakthrough and want a feature
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's not much I can do on my end sadly, without a Treble capable device, but if anyone is interested in trying this on another device with a mainline Treble-enabled Oreo build I'd install Linux and post the build up so just let me know
PhantomGamers said:
There's not much I can do on my end sadly, without a Treble capable device, but if anyone is interested in trying this on another device with a mainline Treble-enabled Oreo build I'd install Linux and post the build up so just let me know
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Google Pixel/Pixel 2 will do, yes?
MishaalRahman said:
Google Pixel/Pixel 2 will do, yes?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah they should be fine
PhantomGamers said:
Yeah they should be fine
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Alright, I'll find you some testers
MishaalRahman said:
Alright, I'll find you some testers
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Here's the system image if you find anyone, it's a straight fresh build of aosp branch 8.0.0r34
If it doesn't work it's possible that I messed the build up, but it should be fine.
Can someone running the Oreo beta post their results running this app?
If the beta isn't CTS compliant, we should know.
PhantomGamers said:
Can someone running the Oreo beta post their results running this app?
If the beta isn't CTS compliant, we should know.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hero you go
TheDethEgineer said:
Hero you go
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks a lot!
This is interesting... according to Malchev, CTS testing REQUIRES a device to boot a generic AOSP image, and yet the Oreo build is CTS certified and doesn't boot the AOSP image...
PhantomGamers said:
Thanks a lot!
This is interesting... according to Malchev, CTS testing REQUIRES a device to boot a generic AOSP image, and yet the Oreo build is CTS certified and doesn't boot the AOSP image...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's true only for new devices, not for devices upgrading for nougat to oreo.
I wasn't aware there was an AMA yesterday... Too bad we could have asked.
Tester with OG Pixel XL says it gives invalid zip file format error when trying to flash in TWRP
MishaalRahman said:
Tester with OG Pixel XL says it gives invalid zip file format error when trying to flash in TWRP
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How about flashing the system image directly from a Pixel 2 XL?
MishaalRahman said:
Tester with OG Pixel XL says it gives invalid zip file format error when trying to flash in TWRP
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's not a TWRP flashable zip, you have to extract the system.img from the zip and flash it with fastboot in the bootloader.
Also as @PresidentMcCain said, seeing the results of flashing a pixel 2 xl system image would be interesting too.
Oh and make sure the tester's OG pixel is already running Oreo before trying. Just adding that in case they didn't upgrade yet.
PhantomGamers said:
It's not a TWRP flashable zip, you have to extract the system.img from the zip and flash it with fastboot in the bootloader.
Also as @PresidentMcCain said, seeing the results of flashing a pixel 2 xl system image would be interesting too.
Oh and make sure the tester's OG pixel is already running Oreo before trying. Just adding that in case they didn't upgrade yet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah, I see.
Do you happen to know the exact command? I'm not that familiar with A/B partition devices and how that changes fastboot commands.
MishaalRahman said:
Ah, I see.
Do you happen to know the exact command? I'm not that familiar with A/B partition devices and how that changes fastboot commands.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I believe it should work as normal
fastboot flash system system.img
EDIT: Apparently with the A/B partitions you'd do fastboot flash system_b system_other.img to flash the b partition, but the aosp build didn't include a system_other.img so I'm assuming perhaps it's not necessary
So far I still can't find anyone willing to flash this on their Pixel haha. People are really hesitant to flash stuff on the Pixel it seems. Times are not like they used to be =\
Any unlocked Bootloader G781B or U owner that can share with me stock boot.img (unrooted). I am building a Custom Kernel for it under a special request but need to check some device info first.
Thanks!
There were a few downloads for the 781B on the Samsung open source site. Asaneh made a TWRP from the kernel source. Maybe there's something there?
Superguy said:
There were a few downloads for the 781B on the Samsung open source site. Asaneh made a TWRP from the kernel source. Maybe there's something there?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have the source and have compiled an image already I just need stock boot.img to check some cmd and build parameters to confirm I have them right but don't want to download the full firmware just for it lol
Thread no longer needed. I have got the boot img I needed for the test. If anybody in here would like to try a custom Kernel send me a PM