Given the Optimus 2x runs the same chip, similar hardware, is it possible to compare the two boot loaders together, and possibly replace the one on the Atrix with then one from the Optimus which is hackable????
Theory seems Okay, after all it is the chip.....
Cheers guys, not sure if i was allowed to post this in one of the actual development threads, and end up ruining all the developers convo's...
In theory, it sounds like a very good idea. I wonder if it would work.
Sent from my MB860 using XDA App
Simple answer. No. The issue isn't just the bootloader its also the cross checks from other areas that check for the moto signatures and if it doesn't find them it fails.
Sent from my MB860 using XDA Premium App
Hmmmmmmmmmm
drock212 said:
Simple answer. No. The issue isn't just the bootloader its also the cross checks from other areas that check for the moto signatures and if it doesn't find them it fails.
Sent from my MB860 using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So in-fact your saying there are signatures to secure the boot-loader as well, not just signatures to secure the kernel from being tampered???
weaz_da_smel said:
Given the Optimus 2x runs the same chip, similar hardware, is it possible to compare the two boot loaders together, and possibly replace the one on the Atrix with then one from the Optimus which is hackable????
Theory seems Okay, after all it is the chip.....
Cheers guys, not sure if i was allowed to post this in one of the actual development threads, and end up ruining all the developers convo's...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sure, find a way to flash it.
If it were that simple, then someone would just take existing code and write similar custom code to replace the bootloader.
But somewhere there is a cert stored in hardware to validate the signature on the bootloader. If the Bootloader fails the sig check then the phone doesn't start.
weaz_da_smel said:
Given the Optimus 2x runs the same chip, similar hardware, is it possible to compare the two boot loaders together, and possibly replace the one on the Atrix with then one from the Optimus which is hackable????
Theory seems Okay, after all it is the chip.....
Cheers guys, not sure if i was allowed to post this in one of the actual development threads, and end up ruining all the developers convo's...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The hardware is not similar. The optimus have 512mb of ram, Atrix have 1gb
The best possibility is to compare The xoom bootloader with tha atrix. Same hardware, same manufacturer, same partitions....
chromedome00 said:
If it were that simple, then someone would just take existing code and write similar custom code to replace the bootloader.
But somewhere there is a cert stored in hardware to validate the signature on the bootloader. If the Bootloader fails the sig check then the phone doesn't start.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ahhhhh truuuuue, now I understand, for so long i thought everyone was looking at secure keys for being able to keep the same bootloader and install custom roms.
Initially i thought you could completely flash the the boot block( with signatures and all) straight to the hardware ( after all the manufacturer did it)
......and of-course it is not easy lol
yungboss22 said:
The hardware is not similar. The optimus have 512mb of ram, Atrix have 1gb
The best possibility is to compare The xoom bootloader with tha atrix. Same hardware, same manufacturer, same partitions....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually the Optimus haves 1gb of TRAM. So if you convert that you should wind up with 1.21 gigawatts.
the2dcour said:
Actually the Optimus haves 1gb of TRAM. So if you convert that you should wind up with 1.21 gigawatts.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I really loled when I read that.
Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk
troll :|
10char
so why doesnt anyone port the xoom loader if the things are so same? anyhow i can confirm that the lg optimus 2x and moto atrix share quite a lot (the ram is not of much importance sort of, mostly the webtop uses a lot of that ram), for one the broadcomm bcm4329 wifi/bluetooth dongle is the same in both, you can even exchange the drivers and they work.
yungboss22 said:
The hardware is not similar. The optimus have 512mb of ram, Atrix have 1gb
The best possibility is to compare The xoom bootloader with tha atrix. Same hardware, same manufacturer, same partitions....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My thoughts exactly..... but I guess everyone would still be stuck on the signature issue as some other members pointed out.......
Maybe I should look into comparing the files for curiosity anyways... no harm in looking.
Sent from my MB860 using XDA App
Moved to proper forum.
Related
So why is it that gps works on 2.2 bland 2.2.1 but not 2.3? Just wonderibg
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA Premium App
I believed this is because the devs don't have actual source code yet.
we need drivers and the only way to come about hose would be an official vibrant gb kernel.
Im no expert but... wouldn't a person like eugene be able to make the drivers it would work?
Honestly, how much smarter are the people at samsung than the people on this forum???
I hope that was a joke.. the effort required to develop drivers for GPS without source code is immense for anyone that wasn't directly involved in the software development for the phone, hence no GPS working with 2.3 on the vibrant. The GPS in the i9000 galaxy s isn't the same as the vibrant, and there isn't a 2.3 rom leaked or released for the vibrant. That's why our 2.3 roms don't have GPS functioning.
Sent from my HTC HD2 using XDA Premium App
jwleonhart said:
Im no expert but... wouldn't a person like eugene be able to make the drivers it would work?
Honestly, how much smarter are the people at samsung than the people on this forum???
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Eugene told the vibrant community to proverbially suck it if I recall correctly.
Sent from my HTC Vision using XDA Premium App
jwleonhart said:
Im no expert but... wouldn't a person like eugene be able to make the drivers it would work?
Honestly, how much smarter are the people at samsung than the people on this forum???
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's like me asking you to build an engine from scratch. I mean, you've probably been in a car. You may even know how to drive it. Maybe change out the washer fluid? Fill it up with gas? Maybe even change the oil!
So if you can do all of that, you should be able to design, fabricate, and build a fully functional, great engine from scratch... Right? It's a pretty important piece of a car - sure - but you work with cars every day!
Not trying to be (too much of) an ass here, but really. Coding drivers is a difficult, very time-consuming task. There's a bit of a difference between coding to directly interact with the hardware, and hooking into existing APIs and modifying existing code. Has nothing to do with smarts. It has to do with resources. Easy testing access to the direct hardware. Money. Time.
I don't really know what's involve in the GPS drivers but I would think that if we get the source for 2.2.1 and make it work, it shouldn't be that that to make it work in 2.3. I am missing something here? I wrote up some linux drivers before, it's not exactly a sacred thing.
brulee said:
I don't really know what's involve in the GPS drivers but I would think that if we get the source for 2.2.1 and make it work, it shouldn't be that that to make it work in 2.3. I am missing something here? I wrote up some linux drivers before, it's not exactly a sacred thing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're missing the point because you're not even seeing what your typing. No we don't have source for 2.2.1 but do you not see those first two numbers. This means that because 2.2.1 is still Froyo we didn't need to update the GPS drivers because they didn't change. Now we are talking about Gingerbread which is 2.3 and a completely new build.
Think of it in terms of windows. When Vista SP1 was released it meant very little when it came to hardware for those already running Vista. Now when Win 7 came out some of you drivers had to be updated. Some things didn't work right off and if you've purchased any hardware in the last 5 years such as a mouse or keyboard you've likely seen the sticker saying Vista compatible or Win 7 compatible.
Does any of this make sense?
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA Premium App
How about this for a related and potentially dumb question. What's the technical reason why a vibrant 2.2 kernel couldn't be used with a 2.3 system. In the Linux desktop arena, a huge variety of kernels can be used with a huge variety of userland.
brulee said:
I don't really know what's involve in the GPS drivers but I would think that if we get the source for 2.2.1 and make it work, it shouldn't be that that to make it work in 2.3. I am missing something here? I wrote up some linux drivers before, it's not exactly a sacred thing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
then you should have no problem getting us gps on 2.3...
funeralthirst said:
then you should have no problem getting us gps on 2.3...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would just like to say that you have made my morning. Thank you. ===================================================
explodingboy70 said:
You're missing the point because you're not even seeing what your typing. No we don't have source for 2.2.1 but do you not see those first two numbers. This means that because 2.2.1 is still Froyo we didn't need to update the GPS drivers because they didn't change. Now we are talking about Gingerbread which is 2.3 and a completely new build.
Think of it in terms of windows. When Vista SP1 was released it meant very little when it came to hardware for those already running Vista. Now when Win 7 came out some of you drivers had to be updated. Some things didn't work right off and if you've purchased any hardware in the last 5 years such as a mouse or keyboard you've likely seen the sticker saying Vista compatible or Win 7 compatible.
Does any of this make sense?
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you for your answer @explodingboy. I know when there is a new version of OS, most if not all drivers have to be ported over. You actually answer my question though -- you don't even have source for 2.2.1!
P.S. I am new on this forum and there is some rule here that I have to wait 5 minutes to edit my post. :-(
Captivate must've gotten their leak because their GPS works
dcontrol said:
Captivate must've gotten their leak because their GPS works
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
On 2.3? Can you post a link to this as proof?
Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk
dcontrol said:
Captivate must've gotten their leak because their GPS works
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The captivate users are lucky in that their GPS works with the i9k files. Its been that way for most if not all of the i9k 2.2.1 roms from Samsung.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
geoffcorey said:
The captivate users are lucky in that their GPS works with the i9k files. Its been that way for most if not all of the i9k 2.2.1 roms from Samsung.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I honestly don't get this. Hardware wise (excluding supported bands) the captivate and the vibrant have the same gps chip. The only difference is software wise: the vibrant uses one software/driver implementation, the captivate another (Which honestly makes no sense.....). In *theory*, the drivers/software implementation should work with our gps chip. Correct me if I'm wrong (Note: I've used the plumbob gps fix for the captivate with some success on the vibrant).
compuguy1088 said:
I honestly don't get this. Hardware wise (excluding supported bands) the captivate and the vibrant have the same gps chip. The only difference is software wise: the vibrant uses one software/driver implementation, the captivate another (Which honestly makes no sense.....). In *theory*, the drivers/software implementation should work with our gps chip. Correct me if I'm wrong (Note: I've used the plumbob gps fix for the captivate with some success on the vibrant).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
its probably because the north korean samsung made the vibrant and the south korean samsung made the captivate and you already know they dont get along.
Re
Here's the confusing thing for me, we had gps for 2.2 after eugene made it work with the leak from the i9k. So now that we have a 2.3 release from Samsung what makes it different. Did gingerbread somehow make gps different. My point is that when we were first getting 2.2 roms gps came quick.
edit: Im not complaining just curious.
compuguy1088 said:
I honestly don't get this. Hardware wise (excluding supported bands) the captivate and the vibrant have the same gps chip. The only difference is software wise: the vibrant uses one software/driver implementation, the captivate another (Which honestly makes no sense.....). In *theory*, the drivers/software implementation should work with our gps chip. Correct me if I'm wrong (Note: I've used the plumbob gps fix for the captivate with some success on the vibrant).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Totally agreed with your assessment! There must be some hardcoded data for the Asian built version vs. North American. Would a binary diff give us some hints? But then if you don't have the source, you can't rebuild the damn thing!
Hi all I have been following this forum as I am considering getting a milestone 2.While searching the web earlier to day I visited GSM arenas page for the milestone 2.Upon reading the comments I see a post at the top by someone named "cloud" giving a link to how to update milestone 2 (droid 2) to gingerbread 2.3.3.Post is dated today and points to a page at latest firmwares website.
I have no milestone to check with so am wondering does anyone know of this?If so can they confirm/dismiss this
Download link leads to a file named Monster_D2_2.3.2_4.5.153.zip
Still none the wiser
Cant post links sorry
Droid2 isnt Milestone2
Sent from my MotoA953 using XDA App
I'll second that. And I don't think it's very hard to discover that while Droid 2 and Milestone 2 look similar they simply aren't the same (I'm sorry but this is such a common assumption from people that it's starting to annoy me).
If you're looking for an Android device that will get updates or has a lot of custom ROMs, the GSM Motorola devices simply aren't made for you. Neither are custom ROMs if you're unable to figure out the differences between Droid 2 and Milestone 2. Flashing a Droid 2 ROM into the Milestone 2 simply might brick it.
However, if you do want a device with support for custom ROMs or the latest updates, it's quite simple: Google's Nexus, Samsung, HTC and LG.
w0ndersp00n said:
However, if you do want a device with support for custom ROMs or the latest updates, it's quite simple: Google's Nexus, Samsung, HTC and LG.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
HTC is starting to lock down its bootloaders...
handsomeboy1702 said:
HTC is starting to lock down its bootloaders...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Dont think so, and the Galaxy SII wont have a locked bootloader so.. go for it.
DeadSix17 said:
Dont think so
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Some devices, like HTC Sensation, are locked. Nexus S is locked as well but unlockable. Unlocking its bootloader you're losing warranty
handsomeboy1702 said:
HTC is starting to lock down its bootloaders...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And hackers are starting to bypass them
Sent from my Milestone 2
cindylove said:
Droid2 isnt Milestone2
Sent from my MotoA953 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is, just another baseband and kernel. All hardware but the cdma/umts difference are the same.
Sent from my Milestone 2
Mikevhl said:
It is, just another baseband and kernel. All hardware but the cdma/umts difference are the same.
Sent from my Milestone 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Almost. Droid 2 is based on the TI OMAP 3620, Milesstone 2 on TI OMAP 3630 but it shouldn't make any difference I think.
Sorry for any confusion caused,but I went out of my way to state where I found the link (the gsm arena MILESTONE 2 page) and that I didnt have a device.Therefore did not tell anyone to flash this "Flashing a Droid 2 ROM into the Milestone 2 simply might brick it"I tried with the help of google to find out the difference between the droid 2 and the milestone previously with no definitive answer.So I presumed it was merely the cdma (us) take on the milestone 2 name the answers have helped me understand a bit more so thanks.I am looking to change phones very soon.I am wondering if the milestone 2 (as I have the opportunity to buy one fro a good price) will definitely see gingerbread in some form.Blurred or not.Also I have no interest in samsung galaxy 2 as is too big and expensive.Also all the new htc phones are not open to custom roms (desire s,incredible s) as some may think.Came to the conclusion that at 220 gbp brand new the milestone 2 may represent a sensible choice of phone.Many thanks and again sorry for the confusion
CDMA vs GSM is probably the most important difference between te devices.
It isn't clear whether Motorola will release a Gingerbread upgrade for the device, as nothing has been confirmed (via Motorola's official support channels). Some say the China version of the Milestone 2 might get an official Gingerbread release, but still as we all know Motorola right know, nothing can be certain.
Mikevhl is right know trying te get CyanogenMod 7 working on the Milestone 2, so probably we might see Gingerbread on this device.
Are they talking bout the total rom capacity or just the /system partition.
For example on my G2 for internal storage the break down of the 2GB (which is not re-partitionable, sizes locked in):
system 409 MB
data 1309MB
cache 201MB
So if they're saying 512MB ROM are they talking strictly about /system, and if so does that likely count out the G2/Vision from the chance of an official rom.
It's not listed here : http://www.htc.com/www/help/android4faq/?cid=android4blog
i think this is for dz not g2
Riro Zizo said:
i think this is for dz not g2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Same thing aren't they? (Like HTC Magic is to Tmobile MyTouch 3g)
As far as I can tell the only real difference between a Desire-Z and G2 is the radio bands available to it, FM Radio, and keyboard layout, but everything else is identical.
kbeezie said:
Same thing aren't they? (Like HTC Magic is to Tmobile MyTouch 3g)
As far as I can tell the only real difference between a Desire-Z and G2 is the radio bands available to it, FM Radio, and keyboard layout, but everything else is identical.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, the difference extends to memory. That's why you need a Desire Z HBOOT in order to use Sense ROMs on a G2.
bogdan5844 said:
No, the difference extends to memory. That's why you need a Desire Z HBOOT in order to use Sense ROMs on a G2.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Though you can put a DZ HBoot on a G2 right? in which case if they did release an official Rom for DZ you would just require the Hboot for that extra 120MB of /system memory.
So the question would extend to that, does that mean with a Desire Z having 535MB of /system, that ICS in theory would be supported by HTC in the official sense.
ram, not rom, is our problem
Sent from my HTC Velocity 4G using xda premium
C.Flat said:
ram, not rom, is our problem
Sent from my HTC Velocity 4G using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
this is what i would assume as well. turns out htc did say ROM, i know strange as they could simply make a new hboot that partitions how large ROM would be on our phones. dont have the link at hand but they clearly are saying ROM - so i have no answer to why they wont update the g2/dz... stupidity? pure evil?
demkantor said:
this is what i would assume as well. turns out htc did say ROM, i know strange as they could simply make a new hboot that partitions how large ROM would be on our phones. dont have the link at hand but they clearly are saying ROM - so i have no answer to why they wont update the g2/dz... stupidity? pure evil?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ram was the original assumption til I seen many corrections to Rom. And as you said flashing a G2 with a DZ hboot would put you at about 549MB /system partition and larger 300M /cache, so if the system size of 512M min were the requirement you'd think that the HTC labeled DZ would at the very least qualify.
But far as why, probably doesn't have a large enough user base, and the device is old enough to not support without pissing off too many folks and probably aiming at making more profit by only offering official ICS to newer devices (or more popular models).
I only care for what an official ICS release from HTC/Quallicom(sp) would give to rom/kernel creators for our devices.
Ppl, it's RAM, not ROM. ROM, it's an operating system. HTC made a mistake. Again.
Sent from my HTC One X using xda app-developers app
vaderx10minipro said:
Ppl, it's RAM, not ROM. ROM, it's an operating system. HTC made a mistake. Again.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In which case the DZ/G2 is listed as "RAM:512 MB" would they still make the cut?
maybe because it has ~380MB of usable RAM they won't update
Riro Zizo said:
maybe because it has ~380MB of usable RAM they won't update
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Though in their announcement did they actually say "must have 512MB 'usable'" ?
Makes more sense that they would be talking about total, as some of that 512 is used by the system.
Doesnt matter what that HTC idiot replied, in your other thread. Its a RAM issue, its always been. If you notice, more than 90% of the phones reciving a ICS update, have more than 512MB of RAM.
BTW, if i was HTC, I wouldnt release a update for ICS. I want to make money off new devices.
riahc3 said:
BTW, if i was HTC, I wouldnt release a update for ICS. I want to make money off new devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well that much is obvious lol. Though how many actual people would avoid going to a new phone just because you can root it and get JB/ICS on it... (though some of us are already running ICS, mainly having the source will likely aid towards JB roms), I honestly don't think the number is quite that big, but time is of course money, and why spend money on a no-return task.
hello,
i posted it in the ICS update thread:
Hey, silly question, i know, think it would be asked many times.
i wanne opend a new thread at dev, but i cant't to less comments --_--
now, we know, we never get a 3.X kernel from moto, so, we must help us at our own, i asked me, how?
my idea was, what abei the LG P990, i heard, there are 3.x kernel, no officiel, i know.
What are the hardware differences at the LG and the atrix? fingerprint and camera, i know, but what about the rest?
it it identicly? is it possible, that we can work with it? at beginning, without camera and fingerprint?
perhaps we found an other device with an identicly camera and 3.x kernel, perhaps we can look in a direction like that? only moto bashing wont help anyway
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i hope any dev get give informations to me?
the developers already know that moto left us behind..
they're talking about it and what they are going to do??..just the time will tell us...we have to wait hehe
I'm not a developer but sometimes i asked then about start the work from some other similar device's kernel (same that you're suggesting here)..they told that it's an idea but should be necessary a massive rewriting...so it's not easy and they will need time even if the device is similar..
thats the point, i think we don't have any other chance, similar devices kernel, or from scratch, the second is the option which needs more time, i think
i wanne call me a developer, nothing in comparsion with our big ones but i would like to help your devs and i think, i'm not the only one, but i don't know how - i know that is many work and needs massive rewriting, but it's our only option.
i only hope some devs would found together and can say, how we, the, i wanne call it "non-kernel-hackers" , can help.
sw0pt5 said:
Why Defy can use Froyo kernel for CM9?
Why Defy can use GB kernel for CM10?
Why Defy bootloader is locked but still have a better development?
Defy also only have GB, no ICS
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not sure if you noticed but the defy and the atrix are two very different phones.
Sent from my MB860 using xda app-developers app
sw0pt5 said:
And two group of devs
but using same kind of OS
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its not as simple as that. Each device is different regardless of the OS. If you think our devs aren't good enough or they aren't trying hard enough then I'm sure you know exactly how to do it so just try yourself .
Sent from my MB860 using xda app-developers app
I just ask quarx for help...
Quarx said:
Cocolopes said:
Hi quarx!
I want to ask you something...how you do to make hwa work on jb for defy?...I ask this because in atrix forum we are mad cos motorola **** us not releasen ICS...
So I think...in first time the problem on defy was the locked bootloader...but you get it work. Atrix has an unlocked bootloader..and we have Nvidia drivers...and I think there is a phone using the same tegra chip on a 2.x kernel...soooo its possible to make something?
If the answer is YES...and you know how to do it...maybe the atrix comunity can donate to you to buy an atrix...
Sorry for the bad english...and I wait for your answer..thank in advance!
from the (m)ATRIX...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You need update EGL libs and kernel drvier for this libs.
Hwa should work automatically.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We have great devs working on atrix...the best ones....but we have no choice...we need help...so...
from the (m)ATRIX... no more moto!
I think atrix slowly died
sw0pt5 said:
Exactly!
Just hope someone can make a smooth CM7 with all the best tweats.
Actually, the stock ROM is quite reliable as daily driver.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1
base gb on cm7 or miui
Thread moved to general and cleaned.
There will be no more flaming here.....
I know of a dev that might be able to help us, as he has made CM10 stable Kernels for many devices and might be able to help us. He goes by the name of Hashcode, I'd link to a profile but I'm on mobile at the moment x.x
Sent from my MB860 using xda premium
MewRai95 said:
I know of a dev that might be able to help us, as he has made CM10 stable Kernels for many devices and might be able to help us. He goes by the name of Hashcode, I'd link to a profile but I'm on mobile at the moment x.x
Sent from my MB860 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Please. Any help would be appreciated.
MewRai95 said:
I know of a dev that might be able to help us, as he has made CM10 stable Kernels for many devices and might be able to help us. He goes by the name of Hashcode, I'd link to a profile but I'm on mobile at the moment x.x
Sent from my MB860 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://forum.xda-developers.com/member.php?u=4243514
i worte a message to him, i hope he can help us
i'm glad, that this thread went to the direction i thought about at starting it
Anyway, i think that our best chances is to raise a found, by donating, and offer it as a bounty for the first dev to create a 3.x kernel for our device. We might find someone that way. Create that kernel takes lots of time and skills. Very very few people are willing to invest all the time required for free.
djluis48 said:
Anyway, i think that our best chances is to raise a found, by donating, and offer it as a bounty for the first dev to create a 3.x kernel for our device. We might find someone that way. Create that kernel takes lots of time and skills. Very very few people are willing to invest all the time required for free.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
agree
Cocolopes said:
I just ask quarx for help...
We have great devs working on atrix...the best ones....but we have no choice...we need help...so...
from the (m)ATRIX... no more moto!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Got a response?
MewRai95 said:
I know of a dev that might be able to help us, as he has made CM10 stable Kernels for many devices and might be able to help us. He goes by the name of Hashcode, I'd link to a profile but I'm on mobile at the moment x.x
Sent from my MB860 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yes hashcode is awesome developer and he has got kexec working one the droid razr/razr maxxx, bionoic and droid 3 I think..
djluis48 said:
Got a response?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes...but I think he didnt have time to help us...
quarxs said:
You need update EGL libs and kernel drvier for this libs.
Hwa should work automatically.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
from the (m)ATRIX...
I too have sent Hashcode a message asking for possible assistance. I told him we would be willing to donate to the cause.
If you can organise a decent fund/development device, I'd recommend contacting TripNRaVeR. He has experience porting the vanilla 3.1.10 Tegra kernel code to a new device (the One X, which shipped with 2.6.39) hence he's probably already halfway there with knowing where to go next. It looks like LG and Sammy have ditched DVFS in their 3.1.10 releases on the Galaxy R and O2X, which would be nice (using standard governors )
Hi Friends,
Is possible in future (development and research) transform regular 9505 in 9505G, not only ROM ports. Or they have hardware differences?
I'm referring to support the (amazing) commands in fastboot fo Nexus Devices.
PS.: Sorry my badly english.
correct me if I'm wrong but the bootloader is different on the G so probably not.
symondo12 said:
correct me if I'm wrong but the bootloader is different on the G so probably not.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Totally different partitions etc etc. But there's some genius devs out there so maybe! It's a pretty long shot though, don't hold your breath.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using xda app-developers app
Even if they could get it working I can imagine there would be a great risk of bricking your device. Anyways I don't think id like to be stuck on GE. As good as the firmware is the lack of choice and features would get pretty boring lol. They've managed to get duel boot working on the i9500 so I'm hope they i9505 will be soon to follow!
I have a I9505, recently flashed a new ROM on it. Now my model number in About Phone shows GT-I19505G,
I suppose that isn't quite the same?
pjilka said:
I have a I9505, recently flashed a new ROM on it. Now my model number in About Phone shows GT-I19505G,
I suppose that isn't quite the same?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No it isn`t.
symondo12 said:
Even if they could get it working I can imagine there would be a great risk of bricking your device. Anyways I don't think id like to be stuck on GE. As good as the firmware is the lack of choice and features would get pretty boring lol. They've managed to get duel boot working on the i9500 so I'm hope they i9505 will be soon to follow!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm keeping an eye on the below thread, it allows you to switch from GE to touchwiz based ROM, its in beta testing at the moment and it will hopefully be released for everyone soon. The handy thing is that your data is shared between both ROMs, which means apps installed on one ROM appear in the other and vice versa.
http://www.modaco.com/topic/364246-beta-2-modacoswitch-s4-i9505-support-topic/
Sent from my Nexus 7 using xda app-developers app
Looks very interesting! I'll keep an eye on that. Thanks for the link!
symondo12 said:
Looks very interesting! I'll keep an eye on that. Thanks for the link!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No worries, it does look great. I've been watching the 4.2.2 and 4.3 GE ROM threads closely but been holding out for this as it seems like the perfect solution to experience the best of both worlds.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using xda app-developers app