According to Alumia Italia there's a 2022 version of Galaxy Tab S6 Lite coming:
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1522831548642385921
This new version has a Snapdragon 720G CPU in stead of an Exynos 9611 in the 2020 version
Noob question here.
When I look at LineageOS supported Samsung devices, I see the majority are Exynos. There are a few snapdragon devices supported for Samsung and of course other manufacturers.
Since the 2020 Tab S6 Lite seems to be one of the newer tablets that is supported by LineageOS, I'm wondering if this move to Snapdragon means the 2022 version is unlikely to be supported.
Not asking about future predictions, but rather because I'm ignorant of the differences between the chips/chip mfgs/device mfgs.
Is there something inherent about Snapdragons that make it hard to open up for customizing?
Is it more of a difficulty due to Samsung decisions around how they implement devices with Snapdragons vs Exynos? (Google pixels for example, of course have snapdragons and are great for LineageOS/Graphene
Anyway, would appreciate a small explanation if anyone can say why custom ROM support on Samsung non-Exynos devices seem to be so rare.
Thanks
The reason why you see so few custom ROMs for Snapdragon-based Samsung devices (phones, mostly) is that these devices are usually ones in the North American market, whereas Exynos is used internationally. Samsung's NorthAm devices are locked down tight with their Knox nonsense, which means the bootloader can't be unlocked (a prerequisite for installing a custom ROM). That's why you tend to only see custom ROMs for international versions of their phones.
Tablets, I think, are another matter, at least for the Wi-Fi-only variants (I can't speak to all the LTE variants as I don't own one or have any experience with them). Tablets are generally region-agnostic and can usually be used anywhere, so it makes no sense for Samsung to clamp down on them (unlike their phones), no matter which processors they use. So, if Samsung were to release a Snapdragon refresh of the Tab S6 Lite, I'm betting that it'll be able to be unlocked... provided this whole thing actually comes to pass, of course.
Related
I'm a long-time Omni user on my Nexus devices. My wife recently got a Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 2014 Edition (LTE) as part of her contract, and I cannot begin to explain how frustrating it is to be back in "Samsung's world". The hardware is incredible (Snapgragon 800, 3GB RAM, 2560x1600 display) but it is loaded with bloat on an outdated 4.3 ROM (only the wifi-only model (Samsung Octa) has Kitkat so far).
Now I know that for a device to be supported, it needs a maintainer. This is a very expensive, niche device, and I presume that there are not many users out there that will be suitable. So my question is, what does the job of a maintainer entail exactly? I've built CM for a couple of devices from source before, but that's about the extent of my knowledge with regards to custom ROM development. Is that sufficient?
I'm thinking that this device should be a fairly easy bring-up, being based on the same SOC as the Nexus 5 (amongst others).
How can I make this happen?
StNickZA said:
I'm a long-time Omni user on my Nexus devices. My wife recently got a Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 2014 Edition (LTE) as part of her contract, and I cannot begin to explain how frustrating it is to be back in "Samsung's world". The hardware is incredible (Snapgragon 800, 3GB RAM, 2560x1600 display) but it is loaded with bloat on an outdated 4.3 ROM (only the wifi-only model (Samsung Octa) has Kitkat so far).
Now I know that for a device to be supported, it needs a maintainer. This is a very expensive, niche device, and I presume that there are not many users out there that will be suitable. So my question is, what does the job of a maintainer entail exactly? I've built CM for a couple of devices from source before, but that's about the extent of my knowledge with regards to custom ROM development. Is that sufficient?
I'm thinking that this device should be a fairly easy bring-up, being based on the same SOC as the Nexus 5 (amongst others).
How can I make this happen?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Being a maintainer takes a LOT of reverse engineering skills. Integrating the OEM's blobs with "normal" AOSP or CAF sources can be a royal pain.
The best bet is to try and start your bringup by using a similar device as a starting point. Same platform is OK, same platform AND OEM is better.
For example, all of the Exynos 4210 devices (except the Tab 7 Plus/7.7) share a common device tree and kernel nowadays (the 7Plus/7.7 were too different from others in the family)
All of the Exynos 4412 devices have a common device tree that's inherited, and a common kernel.
Unfortunately, unlike the Note and Note 2, the Note 3 is significantly different from the GS4. However, your device might be similar to a Note 3, so you MIGHT be able to get started by adding Note 10.1 2014-specific parts to the Note3 kernel and modifying the device tree in a similar fashion.
The best way to learn maintainer skills is to find a device that is semi-supported and start working on figuring out how to fix its features that aren't quite working right. (In my case, I worked with atinm on resolving I777-specific issues to get that device lit up, then started working on remaining I9100/I777-common issues in CM back in the ICS days, then started on the Note which was similar to I777/I9100)
Expect to spend a LOT of time Googling stuff and searching through code. "grep", "strings" and "readelf -d" are your friends. (grep is for searching anything, strings is for looking at the strings in a blob, readelf -d shows you what libraries a blob depends on)
Even an experienced maintainer spends ****-tons of time searching for things and digging through data.
Patience is the most critical thing for a maintainer to have.
Entropy512 said:
Being a maintainer takes a LOT of reverse engineering skills. Integrating the OEM's blobs with "normal" AOSP or CAF sources can be a royal pain.
The best bet is to try and start your bringup by using a similar device as a starting point. Same platform is OK, same platform AND OEM is better.
For example, all of the Exynos 4210 devices (except the Tab 7 Plus/7.7) share a common device tree and kernel nowadays (the 7Plus/7.7 were too different from others in the family)
All of the Exynos 4412 devices have a common device tree that's inherited, and a common kernel.
Unfortunately, unlike the Note and Note 2, the Note 3 is significantly different from the GS4. However, your device might be similar to a Note 3, so you MIGHT be able to get started by adding Note 10.1 2014-specific parts to the Note3 kernel and modifying the device tree in a similar fashion.
The best way to learn maintainer skills is to find a device that is semi-supported and start working on figuring out how to fix its features that aren't quite working right. (In my case, I worked with atinm on resolving I777-specific issues to get that device lit up, then started working on remaining I9100/I777-common issues in CM back in the ICS days, then started on the Note which was similar to I777/I9100)
Expect to spend a LOT of time Googling stuff and searching through code. "grep", "strings" and "readelf -d" are your friends. (grep is for searching anything, strings is for looking at the strings in a blob, readelf -d shows you what libraries a blob depends on)
Even an experienced maintainer spends ****-tons of time searching for things and digging through data.
Patience is the most critical thing for a maintainer to have.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks Entropy. Sounds like I don't have what's required for the job.
Entropy512 said:
However, your device might be similar to a Note 3, so you MIGHT be able to get started by adding Note 10.1 2014-specific parts to the Note3 kernel and modifying the device tree in a similar fashion.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Note III (LTE) is the N9005, and I think the device code is hlte. I can't find a version of Omni for this device either.
StNickZA said:
The Note III (LTE) is the N9005, and I think the device code is hlte. I can't find a version of Omni for this device either.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, no one has done an Omni bringup yet. IbrahimA was considering doing one based on the CM bringup but he hasn't had the time.
Just found out that other Exynos (5420) devices already have working non-samsung roms (i.e. CM11 & MIUI)... makes me wonder what do they have that we don't?
Source code should be (almost) identical, shouldn't it?
(I know that developement / porting is hard work & I'm certainly not "demanding" anything [that would be quite disrespectful] :angel:... I was just wondering, because up to this point the main argument for why there are no CM / AOSP roms has been the lack of source code for the Exynos SoC)
Cyanogenmod 11.0:
SM-T520 Tab Pro 10.1 WiFi
SM-T700 Tab S
MIUI:
N9000 Note III Exynos
I would also like to know and mantain this post as an informative post and not as a demand or petition; I am just really curious as to what makes our tab so special and if anything can be done about it. Hell, i would even like to try to do it myself but i got no time until winter vacations and i am not sure if this tab is something a begginer like me can start with.
The Arndale Octa (Exynos5420) board also has an AOSP build so there’s probably source lying around in either Linaro’s or Insignal’s git repos (or both).
EDIT:
http://git.insignal.co.kr/
EDIT 2:
https://android.git.linaro.org/gitweb/device/linaro/arndale_octa.git
Hello there
I recently acquired our beloved Idol 3, the 4.7" variant (aka 6039Y), and I couldn't help but noticing a rather disturbing fact :
=> Any information about the 6039Y model is diluted in general threads or buried inside the 6045Y threads ...
Would it be possible for everybody posting information/patches/docs/etc specific to the 6039Y model to post stuff in specific threads with a [6039Y] tag in the title somewhere ?
I believe this would make finding relevant information way easier for everyone
I still dream of unified methods/patches for both models, considering both devices shouldn't be that different, but that is up to the volunteers providing the software to decide.
What do you guys/gals think ?
DarkZell666 said:
Hello there
I recently acquired our beloved Idol 3, the 4.7" variant (aka 6039Y), and I couldn't help but noticing a rather disturbing fact :
=> Any information about the 6039Y model is diluted in general threads or buried inside the 6045Y threads ...
Would it be possible for everybody posting information/patches/docs/etc specific to the 6039Y model to post stuff in specific threads with a [6039Y] tag in the title somewhere ?
I believe this would make finding relevant information way easier for everyone
I still dream of unified methods/patches for both models, considering both devices shouldn't be that different, but that is up to the volunteers providing the software to decide.
What do you guys/gals think ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The problem you are gonna have is that you 6039 users are kinda gonna have to run with the ball because your root method AND version of TWRP is totally different then the ones for the 6045 so you can't even follow our guides (for example your version doesn't offer the option to backup "System image" which included partition info). Since no one has done it I don't think anyone would have an issue if you started "how to root on the 6039" and "how to install twrp on the 6039"...notice I'm not identifying a letter because I don't know if the 4.7 model only comes as a 6039Y....the 6045 has 6045i (usa/canada), 6045Y(europe), and 6045K (Various other places). There is also a rumored 6045B.
Dose the 4'7" even have same specs as 5'5" normally the specs ain't the same in smaller version CPU and ram etc , ie s4 quad core 2GB and s4 mini dual core 1.5gb and have totally different root guides and methods , I believe both variants will get good support evench its a cracking device and support is slowly building
Sent from my 6045Y using Tapatalk
DoobyDroid said:
Dose the 4'7" even have same specs as 5'5" normally the specs ain't the same in smaller version CPU and ram etc , ie s4 quad core 2GB and s4 mini dual core 1.5gb and have totally different root guides and methods , I believe both variants will get good support evench its a cracking device and support is slowly building
Sent from my 6045Y using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Different hardware. Different root method. Different version of TWRP. Different method of backing up system image. Basically the only thing that is the same is the fact they call both of them an "Idol 3".
Thought as much
Sent from my 6045Y using Tapatalk
famewolf said:
Different hardware. Different root method. Different version of TWRP. Different method of backing up system image. Basically the only thing that is the same is the fact they call both of them an "Idol 3".
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Considering both phones are Qualcomm-based, I would assume they aren't THAT different after all ? (I AM new to Android development, so there must be something I'm missing for sure )
I mean, Android is based and Linux, and our chip is just yet another ARMv7 chip which the linux kernel supports pretty well, so what makes an ARMv7 chip different from any other ARMv7 chip ?
Do they optimize the kernel so far that they strip anything useless for each phone out of it, effectively rendering each kernel useless on any other phone ?
One last question : wouldn't building a generic ARMv7 kernel from this page be a good starting point ? (msm projet is for Qualcomm hardware) : https://source.android.com/source/building-kernels.html#figuring-out-which-kernel-to-build
Note that I might be daydreaming here and I don't fully realise what amount of works this implies.
DarkZell666 said:
Considering both phones are Qualcomm-based, I would assume they aren't THAT different after all ? (I AM new to Android development, so there must be something I'm missing for sure )
I mean, Android is based and Linux, and our chip is just yet another ARMv7 chip which the linux kernel supports pretty well, so what makes an ARMv7 chip different from any other ARMv7 chip ?
Do they optimize the kernel so far that they strip anything useless for each phone out of it, effectively rendering each kernel useless on any other phone ?
One last question : wouldn't building a generic ARMv7 kernel from this page be a good starting point ? (msm projet is for Qualcomm hardware) : https://source.android.com/source/building-kernels.html#figuring-out-which-kernel-to-build
Note that I might be daydreaming here and I don't fully realise what amount of works this implies.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You need to spend some time reading the existing threads such as the root thread etc where alot of this has been covered. http://forum.xda-developers.com/idol-3/help/root-ability-phone-t3116179
4.7" and 5.5" models have different hardware
The whole forum about Idol 3 is a big mess to me because most people do not realize that the Idol 3 comes in many different hardware configurations.
Indeed we should start stating comments in for at least 5.5 and 4.7 models. (GPU/3g/4g is different and what else) or for both if it applies.
Although this forum already implies it's about a 5.5 model according to the home page, there are many different hardware models discussed! We need active moderators when roms start roling to distinguish ourselfs from lemmings!
Maybe ask a mod to make a 4.7 model sub-forum.
I know the Galaxy S8 supports by default Quick Charge 3.0 but does anyone have a thought onto how if the SD devices (like mine) get root, then get unofficial ROM ports to our devices, do you think in the future it would be possible if the ROMs could support Quick Charge 4.0 natively since the SD 835 is compatible with Quick Charge 4.0? I would love to see that soon in the future.
If anyone can answer this question, that would be greatful.
Thanks!
A chipset natively supporting something and a manufacturer implementing it are two very different things. Samsung would have to design the phone to utilize QC 4.0 which then will take advantage of the native chipset support.
Basically, No. The S8 is not even listed as supporting QC 3.0 in qualcoms website. There's been debates and discussions on other forums and the general consensus is. S8/S8+ only support QC 2.0
Samsung didn't bother adding support
It's not that samsung didn't bother but they didn't pay licenses to Qualcomm because they already paid a lot for sd835 licenses itself and a percentage of every phone sold.
Same goes with updates - if Qualcomm is hostile with updates Samsung will not release those.
I'm testing and getting a couple donated tablets ready for a group, and one came in that was a SM-T237 (which is pre-KRACK-patches ). So far I have tracked down that it is an Exynos 3470 powered system, different from the Marvell SM-T230, and the Qualcomm Matisse, but I can't find even a code name for this particular device, and I want more information before I try to flash "TWRP for Galaxy Tab 4 Degas" or anything else that may or may not break it. Is it similar to any other tablet for a starting point at least?
Looks like nothing simple anyway. Thinking I'll probably slap a "be careful... vulnerabilities" sticker on this one and send it back with Lollipop, and focus my attention on the probably equally difficult ZenPads, but they have 3GB RAM and I have two of them to spread the justification for the effort over.