Many rom projects like Cyanogen mod, Paranoid droid rom and many others were released only for renowned company phones like Galaxy Series, Nexus series etc etc, where as millions & billions of MTK soc phones that contribute alot to the daily millions of Android activations are left out. Many MTK phones developers started request threads for cyanogen mod and other rom communities to build/release a rom for MTK phones but those request were neglected till date.
Now with the start of new rom project "Omni", MTK phone devs are hoping that this rom will also be compiled & released for MTK phones. We want Omni pioneers to release this rom for millions & billions of MTK phones.
We are willing to help you guys making Omni rom project better & grow.
Regards
Wouldn't have it been easier to read some posts in the forum?
This will happen. When you're able to watch the presentation video (which will be up in the next few days) you'll notice that @XpLoDWilD shows Omni running on the Oppo R819, a quad-core MTK device.
jerdog said:
This will happen. When you're able to watch the presentation video (which will be up in the next few days) you'll notice that @XpLoDWilD shows Omni running on the Oppo R819, a quad-core MTK device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are a lot of things in the way. Also, any MTK devices that ship without kernel sources (there are a lot of them) are still out of luck.
The R819 is a game changer here - Oppo really wants it to receive community firmware support and has been EXTREMELY cooperative with us in terms of getting us documentation.
Entropy512 said:
The R819 is a game changer here - Oppo really wants it to receive community firmware support and has been EXTREMELY cooperative with us in terms of getting us documentation.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So they are giving you access to the MTK framework sources? Or do you have to reimplement the dual sim support (I have never seen any open source ROM with dual sim support)? I'd really love to help a bit, having some MTK6577 phones lying around here.
I too have two MTK phones .....they are a powerful if it got development projects like this ...it will be the no.1 vendor in chip set marketing and ...I support for OMNI PROJECT
Sent from my Fly IQ451 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
C-o-M said:
So they are giving you access to the MTK framework sources? Or do you have to reimplement the dual sim support (I have never seen any open source ROM with dual sim support)? I'd really love to help a bit, having some MTK6577 phones lying around here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not sure about the state of dsim support. We do have access to quite a bit, however some items even the OEM we're working with doesn't have access to source for, and it's also a nasty licensing minefield.
There's much better potential than there has been previously, however there are still some nasty technical and legal challenges. For example, MTK's 4.2 firmware appears to be using all sorts of hwcomposer backcompat hacks to use what is effectively a 4.0 (ICS) HWC.
Entropy512 said:
I'm not sure about the state of dsim support. We do have access to quite a bit, however some items even the OEM we're working with doesn't have access to source for, and it's also a nasty licensing minefield.
There's much better potential than there has been previously, however there are still some nasty technical and legal challenges. For example, MTK's 4.2 firmware appears to be using all sorts of hwcomposer backcompat hacks to use what is effectively a 4.0 (ICS) HWC.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
With this I assume device will not receive 4.4 barely 4.3 but can I ask how is to work with OEM?
Sent from my Xperia U using xda app-developers app
XperianPro said:
With this I assume device will not receive 4.4 barely 4.3 but can I ask how is to work with OEM?
Sent from my Xperia U using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nobody can predict what happens in the future.
In terms of working with OEMs, not sure what your question is, but one thing we do bring to the table with Omni is considerable experience in working with OEMs. And that should be rather beneficial for everyone
Will you be allowed to release all sources needed to build the ROM?
There are sources for various MTK devices (MT6577/MT6575) that can be used already. I assume it would be no problem for the omni team to integrate them into their builds.
darkguy2008 said:
There are sources for various MTK devices (MT6577/MT6575) that can be used already. I assume it would be no problem for the omni team to integrate them into their builds.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We have more recent ones that are being used to bring up MTK devices.
At the BBQ, Xplod demonstrated an Oppo r819 running Omni, which is an MT6589
pulser_g2 said:
We have more recent ones that are being used to bring up MTK devices.
At the BBQ, Xplod demonstrated an Oppo r819 running Omni, which is an MT6589
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So with this you mean that those sources work for MT6577 devices?
I wish you guys the best of luck, but conserning MTK and their closed sources policy, i really don't believe those sources (and im talking about the framework /RIL) will be Open Source.
If we are lucky enought we may get some working builds for some of the phones (if an brand gives you support), but concerning the MTK licenses, well its an MINE FIELD.
An good example is the on-going Cyanogen project by FAEA for the F2S (MT6589), they got the green light from MTK, BUT the project will remain Closed Source, so no one will get those sources...
B.Regards
superdragonpt said:
An good example is the on-going Cyanogen project by FAEA for the F2S (MT6589), they got the green light from MTK, BUT the project will remain Closed Source, so no one will get those sources...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
AFAIK, you are wrong:
chasepoes said:
Well I know of one dev. who is develloping CM port voor MTK658x devices (usinf Faea mobile). For now he has to operate under a NDA agreement, but once finished his source will be come available.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
darkguy2008 said:
So with this you mean that those sources work for MT6577 devices?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Unknown. And as I've said, it's a licensing nightmare.
It may be that certain components will have to be developed in a "some people have the source but can only release blobs" - I would prefer to avoid this if at all possible. The issue is if any of those "files with nasty license" are in things that can't be cleanly separated, it will present a MAJOR issue.
Entropy512 said:
Unknown. And as I've said, it's a licensing nightmare.
It may be that certain components will have to be developed in a "some people have the source but can only release blobs" - I would prefer to avoid this if at all possible. The issue is if any of those "files with nasty license" are in things that can't be cleanly separated, it will present a MAJOR issue.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well I assume something like the HTC Magic or the Defy can be done. They don't have the sources for the hardware GPU but they managed to enable hardware compositing after some work somehow. I don't think that MTK will oppose to the project using the libs and such instead of having full access to the code, usually that feels less restrictive for both the company and the devs, imho.
I may be talking rubbish though, I'd just like the MT6577 devices to get some lovin', because we've been fighting for quite some time against ZTE for them to release the kernel sources so we can develop ROMs for the V970M and more =/
darkguy2008 said:
Well I assume something like the HTC Magic or the Defy can be done. They don't have the sources for the hardware GPU but they managed to enable hardware compositing after some work somehow. I don't think that MTK will oppose to the project using the libs and such instead of having full access to the code, usually that feels less restrictive for both the company and the devs, imho.
I may be talking rubbish though, I'd just like the MT6577 devices to get some lovin', because we've been fighting for quite some time against ZTE for them to release the kernel sources so we can develop ROMs for the V970M and more =/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ZTE,I dont know much about this company but its worse than Sony I think...
Why not release kernel sources,what are developers doing at their company...
XperianPro said:
ZTE,I dont know much about this company but its worse than Sony I think...
Why not release kernel sources,what are developers doing at their company...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Pretty much most Chinese companies are like this. Oppo is VERY non-typical of a Chinese company, which is why they have a FAR better chance of global success than any other Chinese mobile OEM right now.
Entropy512 said:
Pretty much most Chinese companies are like this. Oppo is VERY non-typical of a Chinese company, which is why they have a FAR better chance of global success than any other Chinese mobile OEM right now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How very true. I have high hopes for this project as my current device is an OPPO R819. I chose OPPO because exactly they try to be open with the developers, having the experience of Motorola and their locked bootloaders the past years while the Motorola DEFY was my main device. It took a long time for the DEFY to get its first custom kernel and it only happened thanks to some very persistent people. It shouldn't be like this, so as long I have a choice I'll opt for unlocked (and cheap...) devices.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using xda app-developers app
Related
www auraslate com
Hey guys here is an open source hardware tablet site... it might help those out there
johanngummy said:
www auraslate com
Hey guys here is an open source hardware tablet site... it might help those out there
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Open Source, never pertains to hardware, because you don't chisel code on to a circuit board, its Open Design, in which they also offer full open source code for the said open designed tablet. Just saying.
3D printers with atom precision/accuracy are possible in theory, that would really make open source hardware possible
RolAr said:
3D printers with atom precision/accuracy are possible in theory, that would really make open source hardware possible
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Except theory isnt reality.
Very cool!
Good luck with this project, looking forward to see where it goes. Boards still seem a bit on the expensive side...
http://www.auraslate.com/
sounds awesome, but from pieces of hardware to all components of a smartphone it's a hard way.. hope they will coming
Ha, u guys may heared about open moko? Far away from first android, open source hardware and linux, no one take attention, its almost dead, a phone using linux os, it was born before android, and yet still in birth state, jus cox it have very few supporters,and devs.
Sent from my HTC HD2 using xda premium
Anybody have tried this tablets? The website says it's open for deliveries. The 7 inch version is just 150usd
Adam Outler did an "unboxing" with the 10 inch version.
I'm interested with a review of any of the unit, have any suggestion?
garuhhh said:
Anybody have tried this tablets? The website says it's open for deliveries. The 7 inch version is just 150usd
Adam Outler did an "unboxing" with the 10 inch version.
I'm interested with a review of any of the unit, have any suggestion?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
At least Adam's first impression (him being an actual device owner) and mine (based on reading through their site) is they are not nearly as open as they claim to be.
1-2 months ago they were providing ICS firmwares without kernel source - that's less open than any legitimate Android tablet manufacturer. Not sure if they've rectified these issues, but any vendor claiming to be open source/open hardware should NEVER have done that except by accidental error - however there was a post in their forums effectively saying they were withholding source.
http://auraslate.freeforums.org/kernel-for-ics-t53.html - found it, see auraslateadmin's post - This is UNACCEPTABLE from ANY company, ESPECIALLY one that claims to be open source. If you have provided a kernel binary to the public, you MUST provide source code upon request.
Auraslate's marketing of being "open" is a blatant lie - they keep talking about how open they are to sell devices, but then withhold kernel source.
Hi, a developer called pulser_g2 made this petition for Samsung to be more open and be a lot more developer friendly, this petition is for all Samsung android devices. So I thought I would post it here in the hope a few of you may consider singing it please
http://www.change.org/petitions/sam...t-achieve-full-potential-of-purchased-devices
Thank you
I don't see the point in signing this as SAMFIRMWARE already releases a bunch of firmwares for Samsung.
Sent from my GT-i9220 using Tapatalk
kotaro_14 said:
I don't see the point in signing this as SAMFIRMWARE already releases a bunch of firmwares for Samsung.
Sent from my GT-i9220 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
that's not what they're requesting
Samsung releases kernel sources but rest are not. This is the precise reason why CM crew is having trouble getting things like hardware codec support working like the stock rom
I think it's ok to demand full source to be released but i'm not sure if they can release the full source for things that they didn't produce (ie yamaha dac)
ph00ny said:
that's not what they're requesting
Samsung releases kernel sources but rest are not. This is the precise reason why CM crew is having trouble getting things like hardware codec support working like the stock rom
I think it's ok to demand full source to be released but i'm not sure if they can release the full source for things that they didn't produce (ie yamaha dac)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree - according to wikipedia the Android system is open source, so by definition all code should be available to all developers. I'm a bit of a noob to this, but my understanding is that as long as code is properly referenced, it can be re-used/improved etc.
Even something like sound and video drivers should be available to be used enhanced - it would make the system so much better. Voodoo Sound is a classic example of someone have to spend a heck of a lot of time tweaking and playing with a system until they find the right combination. How much better would our wonderful Note be if drivers, codecs and other fundamental kernel-related items were truly available to all?
Signed it
Sent from my GT-N7000 using xda premium
Any devs planning on porting this to the N9? Since Jolla is based of Meego (I Think?).
l.Urker said:
Any devs planning on porting this to the N9? Since Jolla is based of Meego (I Think?).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They said that the N9 can be flash on sailfish but there will be no support provide by Jolla.
Plus, you can find some video with the N950 running sailfish. As the N950 have the same hardware as the N9 so it is compatible.
Please do. I heart my n9 so much...
Sent from my Nexus 7 using xda app-developers app
There'll eventually be a community port of Sailfish*, don't expect it to be very reliable/slick though, there'll be some things that never work properly.
This has all been explained time & time again, I'm not going into the back story as-to-why all this is true, the information is out there.
*not Jolla's flavour, just the stock version of Sailfish, which means it'll be quite bare-bones compared Jolla's Sailfish (initially anyway).
oh thanks for all the replies. my N9 is just collecting dust right now. whats the difference between jolla sailfish and normal one?
Swyped from my M9704
l.Urker said:
oh thanks for all the replies. my N9 is just collecting dust right now. whats the difference between jolla sailfish and normal one?
Swyped from my M9704
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Jolla is the name of the company..
Sailfish is the name of the operating system
Do we have any news on this?
Still now, don't seen any port from Jolla..
even SDK is out..
But I really like to see Jolla port to N9.. :good:
any news about this?
and anyone has stock sailfish on n9?
Chyea!
Sent from my VZW Galaxy Note II, hyper powered via MeanBean - ICE 1.0
- Hyperion 6,200MAh Extended Battery
- Modded Otterbox to fit battery
- An S-Pen (deal with it)
Just to clarify things.
There is this company called Jolla. They make this operating system called SailfishOS which in fact is Mer.
So what is Mer? Mer is an operating system without hardware layer and UX. This means it's useless because it won't run on any hardware. You need the hardware layer which means drivers und you probably need the UX which means the GUI. This 3 parts together give you an operating system that you can use on your hardware. An example of this is SailfishOS.
If you take Mer and add the Hardware layer for the Jolla device and then the Sailfish Silica UI you get SailfishOS. The only other iteration of SailfishOS which exists is the one with the hardware layer for the Nokia N950. This will never be released as an official or supported Version.
So for all you guys waiting for a port of SailfishOS for device xyz. This won't happen. There is only one thing that could possible become reality and that's a leaked, unsupported beta image of SailfishOS for the Nokia N950/N9. Maybe this image will be the same which we saw in early demos of SailfishOS.
So the rule is as follows:
Even if you get all the linux drivers (not Android) for Mer so that you could possibly run Mer on your device you still need the UX. Jolla won't give you their Sailfish UI. You could use the Nemo mobile UI that is similar to it but the Sailfish UI will only be available on official Jolla devices.
But let's dream a little bit. If you really get Linux drivers for your device xyz and the Jolla device is out there and it has nearly the same hardware as your device it could be possible that you take all the packages that contain the Sailfish Silica UI and install them on your own device with Mer and your own hardware layer. This is possible in theory. In reality I don't think we will see a usable port that can be your daily driver.
An exchange which should help folks understand why there's no images*: http://pastie.org/private/lgldc4h3dikjkqc9nxecaq
They've said once they have one or more devices shipping, they'll probably start to open Sailfish much more, but not a minute before, for several reasons.
But that doesn't mean they'll also start to support images for 3rd-party devices, they'll probably never do that to the degree Canonical does, see the above.
*original source for that pastie
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1941044&p=48#r950
Jolla will be ported to N9. It won't hava all the functions, that on the Jolla device (for ex. no Voice control...anyway who needs it?), but it will be officially released around september/october 2013. So be patient
Giorgio84 said:
Jolla will be ported to N9. It won't hava all the functions, that on the Jolla device (for ex. no Voice control...anyway who needs it?), but it will be officially released around september/october 2013. So be patient
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For real? or just your wish?
Is there an ETA?
Is there an ETA on when someone could make some early progress on this project? I'm worried that people are losing so much interest that a preview version of Sailfish running on the N9 might be a great idea to get people wanting more of the Meego successor.
That way, people would be falling in love with Sailfish and since it would have a significant spec-bump over the N9, people would be willing to buy it for the screen/display improvement, the "other half," and the great UI.
Giorgio84 said:
Jolla will be ported to N9. It won't hava all the functions, that on the Jolla device (for ex. no Voice control...anyway who needs it?), but it will be officially released around september/october 2013. So be patient
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do you have any source for this info? Because there is no official announcement that hit my attention.
hacker00740 said:
Is there an ETA on when someone could make some early progress on this project?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As always "when it's done". Please stop asking for ports. Just wait until Jolla came out with there first device. I'm sure there will be ports and adaptions all over the place once the Software gets in the hands of the right guys. And this community or t.m.o is prbably the first place to know it. But asking for it every second won't let that happen earlier.
Hello friends ..
No new news??
SDK when the operating system was released.
Test video of the operating system on it is N9. Why not port the operating system to handset N9 its wonderful ...
Please help developers...
maxomid said:
Hello friends ..
No new news??
SDK when the operating system was released.
Test video of the operating system on it is N9. Why not port the operating system to handset N9 its wonderful ...
Please help developers...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The SDK didn't include the full version of the Sailfish OS. It only contains a basic emulator for apps. So until Jolla releases a phone with Sailfish, it is impossible to port
Sent from my GT-N7100 using xda app-developers app
tbo-art said:
The SDK didn't include the full version of the Sailfish OS. It only contains a basic emulator for apps. So until Jolla releases a phone with Sailfish, it is impossible to port
Sent from my GT-N7100 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the answer
Will be released in full when it is SDk?
Why developers do not work on this phone Nitdroid ROM Port ... Time to full Android experience on these phones ...
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2342102
Hi, i want to share this post from a Jolla engineer giving tips to start porting Sailfish:
I'm pretty sure I phrased it a bit different So, both the N900 and N9 have the problem of having binary blobs, which Jolla is not allowed to distribute, and almost certainly never will be. The N9 additionally has the problem of having an older kernel than the N900 -- old enough that it's starting to cause problems. That's the reason why I probably mentioned N900.
As for Nemo and N9, Nemo is a community followup project of MeeGo, and as such inherited basic N9 hardware adaptation, and the right to redistribute those binary blobs. So, if you as user take a Nemo image and put Jolla stuff in there it works -- but we as Jolla can't do that.
Another problem is that the old N9 adaptation is based on X11, while we are using Wayland. We do have a proof of concept Wayland stack up on N9 (available through Nemo as well), but it has its fair shair of problems.
That we're using Wayland makes your suggestion of porting Sailfish libraries to Harmattan hard as well: Harmattan is an X11 stack (same in the different direction: you can't use a Harmattan binary on Sailfish. If you have the source porting is trivial -- unless it's using meegotouch. But if you only have a binary it won't run. In theory something hacking with xwayland might be possible, but that's pretty crazy, and a sailfish port/rewrite would almost certainly be the better option)
So, it should be pretty clear by now that we will not do N9 images. What needs to happen for community to be able to do the port? Easy: Get involved in Nemo. I mentioned that several times, though so far nobody showed interest.
It's mainly 3 areas that need work:
- finish port to the 3.5 kernel we started. The required tasks are in Nemos Bugzilla
- start fixing bugs in the Wayland proof-of-concept for N9
- reverse engineer hardware components where no driver exists, and do drivers (like GPS)
So, it's a hard task, but not impossible. The Nemo community and Jolla provided a very good starting point with Nemo, now it's up to community members to step up, and continue.
SOURCE: TMO
Hi guys!
First it's many months i don't come here on xda.
Second i haven't this device
...but i playing with this SoC from 2 months in a developers board (Odroid-XU-E).As you,i can go at 1.8 Ghz with A15 and 640 Mhz max with gpu when i build kernels for it..No luck until now in enabling 8 cores...also if for you is a bit useless,being the SoC in a phone on battery(where my board instead is AC powered!)but i know there were a lot of drama about it months ago about the CCI-400 bug
...and something is moving.look here those diff\patches
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/10/1/264
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/10/1/259
Thanks buddy. but i think samsung unofficially announced about not to support all 8 cores functional At one time.
Also what abiut heating and Boooom problem? I means, It may blast our mobile if not supported fully?
Edit: Seen that samsung official working on it.
A Suggestion: Change the thread name to True octa core.
Sent from my GT-I9500 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
Any pros to enlighten me what this actually means? Will this patch actually work?
Does it utilize the CCI400(which was believed to be broken) or other approach?
Sent from my GT-I9500 using xda app-developers app
sert00 said:
Hi guys!
First it's many months i don't come here on xda.
Second i haven't this device
...but i playing with this SoC from 2 months in a developers board (Odroid-XU-E).As you,i can go at 1.8 Ghz with A15 and 640 Mhz max with gpu when i build kernels for it..No luck until now in enabling 8 cores...also if for you is a bit useless,being the SoC in a phone on battery(where my board instead is AC powered!)but i know there were a lot of drama about it months ago about the CCI-400 bug
...and something is moving.look here those diff\patches
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/10/1/264
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/10/1/259
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
a word from @AndreiLux to make things clear..
thanks !
Will this patch actually work?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For us, basically no. These patches are for device-tree based kernels which our platform specific one isn't.
For the ODROID-XU / eventual theoretical DT based i9500 kernel it might be a possibility.
I see there's some non-standard alterations to the CCI driver related to the coherency ports, but they didn't even answer in the mailing list as to why they are there.
gdonanthony said:
a word from @AndreiLux to make things clear..
thanks !
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i m also waiting for him. Posted the link in Previous thread of @AndreiLux buddy.
Sent from my GT-I9500 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
AndreiLux said:
For us, basically no. These patches are for device-tree based kernels which is not part of ours.
For the ODROID-XU / eventual theoretical DT based i9500 kernel it might be a possibility.
I see there's some non-standard alterations to the CCI driver related to the coherency ports, but they didn't even answer in the mailing list as to why they are there.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
@sert00 so here is the answer ... damn so sad about this things going on... and im hoping somethings will get better soon
thanks AndreiLux
AndreiLux said:
For us, basically no. These patches are for device-tree based kernels which our platform specific one isn't.
For the ODROID-XU / eventual theoretical DT based i9500 kernel it might be a possibility.
I see there's some non-standard alterations to the CCI driver related to the coherency ports, but they didn't even answer in the mailing list as to why they are there.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Does that mean it's a hardware level possibility, and just need to be implemented by clever brains?
They mentioned it was tested on 5410 dev board, dunno what that actually means..
Also regarding DT kernel, if I'm not wrong Linux is now forcing devs to switch to DT? So do you foresee any future for i9500 to actually have a DT kernel?
Forgive me if I was talking nonsense, I'm quite noob.
Sent from my GT-I9500 using xda app-developers app
lch920619x said:
Does that mean it's a hardware level possibility, and just need to be implemented by clever brains?
They mentioned it was tested on 5410 dev board, dunno what that actually means..
Also regarding DT kernel, if I'm not wrong Linux is now forcing devs to switch to DT? So do you foresee any future for i9500 to actually have a DT kernel?
Forgive me if I was talking nonsense, I'm quite noob.
Sent from my GT-I9500 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I doubt Samsung will ever switch the current generation to a DT model much like they never update older phone's kernels, but backport the needed bits. They're talking about the SMDK board which are LSI internal development boards. It is a STUPID amount of effort to switch over to a DT kernel, any hope is that some third-party gets some kind of update on the matter and be able to pull from that. Even the XU has only some half-hearted DT support and they work mostly on the platform kernel which is similar to ours.
Alternatively I could just pull the relevant MCPM backend and that new EDCS from the patch and try to get hack something together. But I would want to at least those patches to be actually accepted into mainline and have the 5410 supported there before one begins on an adventure into unknown territory.
AndreiLux said:
I doubt Samsung will ever switch the current generation to a DT model much like they never update older phone's kernels, but backport the needed bits. They're talking about the SMDK board which are LSI internal development boards. It is a STUPID amount of effort to switch over to a DT kernel, any hope is that some third-party gets some kind of update on the matter and be able to pull from that. Even the XU has only some half-hearted DT support and they work mostly on the platform kernel which is similar to ours.
Alternatively I could just pull the relevant MCPM backend and that new EDCS from the patch and try to get hack something together. But I would want to at least those patches to be actually accepted into mainline and have the 5410 supported there before one begins on an adventure into unknown territory.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have to admit i got some difficulties understanding part of your post.
However I think I grasp the main idea and I'm looking forward to seeing how things will work once you try to implement the patch. Thanks for your effort.
BTW I'm using Chinese C version ROM(ZCUCMH1 to be specific), if I flash perseus ontop of my ROM, camera will refuse to open and report camera failure.
Not asking you to solve it but just curious if you can tell me what will possibily cause this?
Also if you have time can you point out what exactly is stopping us from having a fully functional AOSP build?
We got full kernel source code due to GPL, don't we?
And in another post you said it's nothing to do with documentation.
So what is it?
Sent from my GT-I9500 using xda app-developers app
thanks for the answer andreilux!i posted it only as a info.also on odroid board will be ready only when mainlined on 3.13 kernel,as sad by a linux developer,and there's tons of works to do to others stuffs to works!
Google has made it mandatory for devices launched with Android Oreo to have Linux Kernel 4.4 and Project Treble but
Older Android devices released prior to Android O but that will be upgraded to Android O can continue to use their original base kernel version if desired.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From AOSP/Google (I can't yet put links to source as I don't have 10 posts yet)
Which includes our OnePlus 3T. As OnePlus has already said Android Oreo will be the last major update for our device (officially) we might not get Project Treble (like Nexus 5X and 6P) and Linux kernel 4.4 (a major update from our current 3.18) making it very difficult for the developer community to port future updates as Android P and above might only have Treble base unlike Android Oreo.:crying:
That would be a another bummer after there limited support announcement for 3t. For know I keep my fingers crossed for a better message on this front.
Still if images are released for AOSP you still will get development for our phone though. ?
Goku80 said:
Still if images are released for AOSP you still will get development for our phone though. ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly. Honestly I don't see why Project Treble matters to the average ROM user. I just want my phone to work and perform well and have a decent battery life. Besides that I don't really care. Currently I have a Nexus 6 and just replaced the battery in it but I'm perusing the forums for various devices (this was one of them) that I may be interested in. I want to see how the development community is for each one before I decide. Reason I may be considering this over the OP5 is I have heard bad things about the screen and jelly scrolling.
rjmxtech said:
Honestly I don't see why Project Treble matters to the average ROM user.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You don't see why?
Let me help you out:
Ars Technica said:
Custom ROMs shouldn't need to be painstakingly hand-crafted for individual devices anymore—a single build should cover multiple Treble devices from multiple manufacturers. Imagine the next time a major new version of Android is released. On Day One of the AOSP code drop, a single build (or a small handful of builds) could cover every Treble device with an unlocked bootloader, with a "download Android 9.0 here" link on XDA or some other technical website.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
UltimateGoblin said:
You don't see why?
Let me help you out:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I totally agree this !
UltimateGoblin said:
You don't see why?
Let me help you out:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly! Development and porting of Custom ROMs will become easier than ever before and porting of future versions of Android will also become way lot easier (if possible at all as future versions of Android might become completely dependent on Project Treble unlike Android Oreo which is compatible with both)! And porting Project Treble is very very difficult if not impossible (unless you are the Silicon Manufacturer) !
So lets together spread the information about the importance of Project Treble and pressure OnePlus to provide Project Treble with #WeWantTreble
We shall Never Settle!
#WeWantTreble
Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using XDA Labs
Lets spam Carl Pei twitter with questions regarding this..
(Well not really spam, that would be rude, more like a lot of people asking him same question in shorts period of time)
I could be wrong but I think Treble integration is likely more on the SoC vendor than it is the OEM making the device. While they work hand-in-hand, I kind of doubt QCOM is going to make a Treble-compatible BSP for the 821 at this point.
Lyokacanthrope said:
I could be wrong but I think Treble integration is likely more on the SoC vendor than it is the OEM making the device. While they work hand-in-hand, I kind of doubt QCOM is going to make a Treble-compatible BSP for the 821 at this point.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i have red somewhere that pixel devices support treble. Same Soc, should have supported. idk.
From my experience as a Junior Android developer and reading the papers about the project treble, i could say that if there is a little group op3t developers who want this, this can be possible.
UltimateGoblin said:
You don't see why?
Let me help you out:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Interesting. But I assume there would still be issues even if they tried to make a universal solution.
Lyokacanthrope said:
I could be wrong but I think Treble integration is likely more on the SoC vendor than it is the OEM making the device. While they work hand-in-hand, I kind of doubt QCOM is going to make a Treble-compatible BSP for the 821 at this point.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Treble is mostly dependent on the SoC vendor as Project Treble is all about a vendor implementation with a vendor interface layer connecting it to the Android OS Framework unlike before when (parts of) Android OS Framework had to be compiled along with the vendor implementation as there was no interface layer in between them.
But Google Pixel which is also on the Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 as the OnePlus 3T has Project Treble but I also doubt how did they manage to get the silicon specific code required for implementing Project Treble during Developer Previews as generally the source code of Developers Previews is available only to Google and Qualcomm generally doesn't share the uncompiled silicon specific code even with OEMs (I might be wrong and Qualcomm and Google might be having partnership).
As there is already Project Treble for Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 (Google Pixel) I think it might be upto OnePlus to choose if it wants to implement it.:fingers-crossed:
DelicatePanda said:
Treble is mostly dependent on the SoC vendor as Project Treble is all about a vendor implementation with a vendor interface layer connecting it to the Android OS Framework unlike before when (parts of) Android OS Framework had to be compiled along with the vendor implementation as there was no interface layer in between them.
But Google Pixel which is also on the Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 as the OnePlus 3T has Project Treble but I also doubt how did they manage to get the silicon specific code required for implementing Project Treble during Developer Previews as generally the source code of Developers Previews is available only to Google and Qualcomm generally doesn't share the uncompiled silicon specific code even with OEMs (I might be wrong and Qualcomm and Google might be having partnership).
As there is already Project Treble for Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 (Google Pixel) I think it might be upto OnePlus to choose if it wants to implement it.:fingers-crossed:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Friggin' derp. How did I forget about the Pixel?
That being said, we'd still need to see how its implemented on the Pixel...As far as I know Treble also relies in a specific type of device partitioning which may be problematic for existing device adaptations. The Pixel phones already used the /vendor partition how it's supposed to be used so adapting Treble is almost a non-issue. I don't think our phone uses the same partition layout.
As of open beta 16 Oxygen OS we didn't get the new v4.4 kernel and also project Treble:crying:
DelicatePanda said:
As of open beta 16 Oxygen OS we didn't get the new v4.4 kernel and also project Treble:crying:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That sucks .. even for OnePlus 5?
why the heck Carl is not replying officially on it, anywhere???