Database Users

Android 2.3 out

So now that Android 2.3 is out, what would it take to get it on the Gtab?

wiredmonkey said:
So now that Android 2.3 is out, what would it take to get it on the Gtab?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1 I would also like to move my gtab from 2.2.0 to 2.3.0.

+1
Sent from my GT-P1000 using XDA App

My guess, since ViewSonic hasn't released source is that it will be some time. Perhaps the Vega or Zpad devs will get to it first.
Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk

I think there is supposed to be a official update of the 20th.
I bet it will be Android 2.3 plus whatever app store Viewsonic managed to dig up.

The best thing about 2.3 for tablets like this without 3G is the VoIP phone calling.

Android 2.3 SDK is out. There's no OTA update for Nexus One yet. Nexus S release was announced for December 16th, so there will be something out by then for N1 presumably.
Not sure how much luck we'll have rolling our own Gingerbread build quite yet. We still have no kernel source or any other source code from Viewsonic for that matter. Basically, I'm pretty sure I'll have Gingerbread on my Nexus One well before my G Tablet.
BTW, there is some explicit stuff surrounding large screen support in the Gingerbread SDK. Sort of a recognition that there are now tablet devices out there even though they won't be blessed until the 3.0 release.

popezaphod said:
My guess, since ViewSonic hasn't released source is that it will be some time. Perhaps the Vega or Zpad devs will get to it first.
Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm new to Android, but why do we have to wait for Viewsonic? Can't the standard Android 2.3 source be compiled for the Gtab?

I'd recommend everyone calling Viewsonic support and asking them, if they get enough questions they may find some type of answer so we can guage their actions.
I do know that 2.3 has been worked on for this specific OEM device by Malata(zpad). The Woow! device is supposed to be released fairly soon with it. There are nvidia engineers working for Malata who will be on top of this, and I doubt it will take over a month to get it on our device one way or another.

wiredmonkey said:
I'm new to Android, but why do we have to wait for Viewsonic? Can't the standard Android 2.3 source be compiled for the Gtab?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Android 2.3 "source" hasn't been released, only the SDK (Software Developers Kit).
You can download the SDK and start coding applications for OS 2.3 but you can't start building 2.3 ROM's until the source is released.

rothnic said:
I'd recommend everyone calling Viewsonic support and asking them, if they get enough questions they may find some type of answer so we can guage their actions.
I do know that 2.3 has been worked on for this specific OEM device by Malata(zpad). The Woow! device is supposed to be released fairly soon with it. There are nvidia engineers working for Malata who will be on top of this, and I doubt it will take over a month to get it on our device one way or another.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
One month is better than six. With what we've seen so far, I wouldn't expect 2.3 any time soon, at least from VS. I know you Devs will get it to us way sooner.
Everyone excited about this VS "update" coming this month, I wouldn't get too terribly excited. Definitely wouldn't expect more than Flash for the Stock ROM. If VS is smart they'll pay Roebeet for his efforts and make TnT Lite the "update"

tcrews said:
Android 2.3 "source" hasn't been released, only the SDK (Software Developers Kit).
You can download the SDK and start coding applications for OS 2.3 but you can't start building 2.3 ROM's until the source is released.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah, gotcha.

Umm, I wouldn't expect anything but 2.2 from Viewsonic. Looking at the quality of their release software, besides bugfixes to make the stock ROM "usable" I doubt they will care about supporting this thing.
Once the source is released your time would be better spent thanking whichever dev decides to take this massive undertaking of porting 2.3.

tcrews said:
Android 2.3 "source" hasn't been released, only the SDK (Software Developers Kit).
You can download the SDK and start coding applications for OS 2.3 but you can't start building 2.3 ROM's until the source is released.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
not quite. you can use the sdk to build a rom.
its very hard and time consuming. but it can be done.
just look at what punk.kaos has done with the eris. there is already a (Very Buggy) gingerbread rom for the eris.

No, you can't use the SDK to build a rom but you can use the crippled system.img they provide in it and try to hack something together. Hacking that and using an older kernel isn't really the way to go. Compiling a rom is going to require source.
Building a rom, to me, is compiling from source. Otherwise you are tweaking someone else's rom or worse...trying to use an image created for the emulator.
Not to downplay his efforts or skill...but that is not a rom to use other than for experimenting or "learning" from.
babybacon said:
not quite. you can use the sdk to build a rom.
its very hard and time consuming. but it can be done.
just look at what punk.kaos has done with the eris. there is already a (Very Buggy) gingerbread rom for the eris.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sent from my Viewsonic 10" GTab...

tcrews said:
No, you can't use the SDK to build a rom but you can use the crippled system.img they provide in it and try to hack something together. Hacking that and using an older kernel isn't really the way to go. Compiling a rom is going to require source.
Building a rom, to me, is compiling from source. Otherwise you are tweaking someone else's rom or worse...trying to use an image created for the emulator.
Not to downplay his efforts or skill...but that is not a rom to use other than for experimenting or "learning" from.
Sent from my Viewsonic 10" GTab...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Idk man. kaosfroyo on my eris has been wonderfully fast and stable (especially for as slow as the eris is) ever since v22. these things take some tweaking.

[CRAZYTHEORY] Joint HC Developement?

Hello there,
I have this theory... I want to hear your opinions to see if I'm just crazy or I'm correct in thinking this.
After seeing how the unmodified Acer Iconia Galaxy ROM + modified ASUS Transformer kernel (Clemsyn's) worked on a Transformer I started to think that this could be because of all the Honeycomb tablets are running a pretty similar OS configuration ("stock-like" Honeycomb).
Am I right in thinking this (I haven't actually used any other HC tablet except the Iconia)?
If this is right, it kind of explains why an unmodified ROM developed for the Iconia works with our device, as they are using pretty similar systems. The main difference, of course, is the hardware. This explains the wifi, battery and other issues in this example. This was partly corrected from the use of an ASUS TF kernel (Clemsyns) with the same ROM since the kernel provides the needed interfaces, modules, whatever for the respective hardware.
Of course, the kernels between the devices, I'm assuming as I haven't actually compared the source, are pretty similar aside from certain hardware modules that have been left out during compilation, as they are both just modified Linux kernel. This explains why the Iconia ROM worked (mostly) even when using an Iconia kernel.
So am I right with all the above, or am I missing something obvious, or am I just crazy (2am and my PC's made my room very hot afterall)?
Okay, so if the above is correct, couldn't/shouldn't we be doing some cooperative developement with other Honeycomb device developers? Or at least the Iconia developers, as I'm not sure about other devices. I mean, if the ROMs are pretty much compatible, all that would need to be done is have a respective kernel for the respective device flashed on-top of the ROM, right?
Anyway, laugh at me, flame me, tell me to go to bed, whatever, but I'd like to know what your thoughts are.
And on a related note:
Has anyone actually tried flashing any other "other-device ROMs" onto a TF with a TF kernel and got it working?
I'd love to try, but my internet is terrible... I swear someone else on the network constantly has their BT speeds uncapped 24/7 (share-house's are ****ty).

I think that's pretty much the goal of the CyanogenMod project. Only reason they haven't begun on a Honeycomb version is because Google never released the AOSP. Hopefully this will change with ICS.

Yes, the OEMs are working together with google behind the scenes.
More than likely Google has "forced" them to contribute code in order to participate and enjoy early code.
Unified code at the OS level would be a godsend and allow for Windows - style updates.

poltak11 said:
After seeing how the unmodified Acer Iconia Galaxy ROM + modified ASUS Transformer kernel (Clemsyn's) worked on a Transformer I started to think that this could be because of all the Honeycomb tablets are running a pretty similar OS configuration ("stock-like" Honeycomb).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As far as I'm aware, pretty much all the current crop of Honeycomb tablets are all based on the Nvidia Ventana reference platform, so it's not too surprising that they are all very, very, similar software-wise.
Regards,
Dave

JCopernicus said:
Yes, the OEMs are working together with google behind the scenes.
More than likely Google has "forced" them to contribute code in order to participate and enjoy early code.
Unified code at the OS level would be a godsend and allow for Windows - style updates.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But as the OEMs are working together, why aren't independant developers here on xda? I mean, I'm just thinking that a lot more nice work would get done if there was unified developement going on between the HC devices instead of seperate forums, and seperate ROMs that seem to be very similar.
And yes, I do agree about the closed source problem. But Google said this is just a temporary thing, right?

It's hard to write too much code when you don't have the original to start with.
No one really wants to write Honeycomb from scratch.
sassafras

sassafras_ said:
It's hard to write too much code when you don't have the original to start with.
No one really wants to write Honeycomb from scratch.
sassafras
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I understand this, of course, but excuse my ignorance when it comes to Android Developement, but what are the developers of PRIME and Clemsyn's ROM and all the other HC ROMs working with at the moment, as there is no source other than the GPL'd kernel?

poltak11 said:
I understand this, of course, but excuse my ignorance when it comes to Android Developement, but what are the developers of PRIME and Clemsyn's ROM and all the other HC ROMs working with at the moment, as there is no source other than the GPL'd kernel?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They are working with the OTA. It is all compiled things. They can add things on top of it, but they can't do modifications to it because its already compiled (source code not provided).

zephiK said:
They are working with the OTA. It is all compiled things. They can add things on top of it, but they can't do modifications to it because its already compiled (source code not provided).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah, fair enough. Well assuming that Google actually does release the source-code sometime, will this sort of thing be happening? As in co-developement between devices?
It just seems like the sensible thing to be happening, as opposed to a greatly splintered "fork" style of developement.

poltak11 said:
Ah, fair enough. Well assuming that Google actually does release the source-code sometime, will this sort of thing be happening? As in co-developement between devices?
It just seems like the sensible thing to be happening, as opposed to a greatly splintered "fork" style of developement.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Chances are there will be a CyanogenMod type project once Android tablet sources are released.
However, there will always be developers who are primarily interested in doing their own thing, which is perfectly acceptable too.
Regards,
Dave

poltak11 said:
Ah, fair enough. Well assuming that Google actually does release the source-code sometime, will this sort of thing be happening? As in co-developement between devices?
It just seems like the sensible thing to be happening, as opposed to a greatly splintered "fork" style of developement.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's a reason CM hasn't officially touched any Honeycomb tablet. There's no source. Once they open up the source with ICS then everyone will be working on it through github.

[Q] Honeycomb on KF? Vs ICS

Ahoy mateys. I've been a longtime Android user (October 2009) and have never been much for running the stock OS on my devices.
Currently I've been running CM7 and loving it on the KF. Been keeping tabs on the ICS port over, just waiting for the sound issues to be hammered out as I use the device mostly for watching videos via RockPlayer.
Lately I've been thinking about trying to port over Honeycomb to the KF, as it might be simpler given that it's been around longer. I know that it's somewhat futile given the state of the 3.0 kernel being needed for HW acceleration. But it seems like it could be worthwhile just to test it and see what might happen. Give it more tablety goodness if anything!
I'm a programmer by trade and am majoring in CS. Not much dev experience on Android aside from writing games. But I've built Gentoo for my machines, so I've got some kernel knowledge. What do you guys think?
Regards,
-Free
P.S. I don't have 10 posts so this is in General.

freeqaz said:
Ahoy mateys. I've been a longtime Android user (October 2009) and have never been much for running the stock OS on my devices.
Currently I've been running CM7 and loving it on the KF. Been keeping tabs on the ICS port over, just waiting for the sound issues to be hammered out as I use the device mostly for watching videos via RockPlayer.
Lately I've been thinking about trying to port over Honeycomb to the KF, as it might be simpler given that it's been around longer. I know that it's somewhat futile given the state of the 3.0 kernel being needed for HW acceleration. But it seems like it could be worthwhile just to test it and see what might happen. Give it more tablety goodness if anything!
I'm a programmer by trade and am majoring in CS. Not much dev experience on Android aside from writing games. But I've built Gentoo for my machines, so I've got some kernel knowledge. What do you guys think?
Regards,
-Free
P.S. I don't have 10 posts so this is in General.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Personally, I think it's a good idea, and that you should do it. You'll probably get a lot of people saying there's no point cause ICS is what honeycomb should've been. I've never used honeycomb before, so I don't know how different it is from ICS but I'm sure there are some.
I think you should do it to give this device and its users another ROM choice, with a different android version. Or even just for the fact that you might want to use it, do it for yourself and post it here just to see if people want it. I'd try it out, even if ICS is out and stable haha
Sent from my HTC Glacier using Tapatalk

Personally, I think it's a good idea, .... I've never used honeycomb before...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Huh?
Why would you encourage someone to work on something when you yourself don't know what the differences are between them??
ICS is Honeycomb just taking to what was its planned completion. With many Honeycomb devices moving to ICS I don't see the point.
That would be doing a lot of work, just to end up with an in between OS with all the new support going to ICS which is what everyone that can get it wants.
Also, for someone with no Android programming experience, you most likely would be a lot better of working with apps before tackling a whole OS.

krelvinaz said:
Huh?
Why would you encourage someone to work on something when you yourself don't know what the differences are between them??
ICS is Honeycomb just taking to what was its planned completion. With many Honeycomb devices moving to ICS I don't see the point.
That would be doing a lot of work, just to end up with an in between OS with all the new support going to ICS which is what everyone that can get it wants.
Also, for someone with no Android programming experience, you most likely would be a lot better of working with apps before tackling a whole OS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'd like to check it out. It's not like I'm telling him that he needs to do this, he asked what people thought of the idea because he was interested in doing it, and I voiced my opinion.
Though I do agree that it might be easier to work with apps and then maybe work on a ROM, but hey, if he's willing to attempt it and learn how everything works, why stop him? The more devs, the merrier lol

Isn't the problem with porting honeycomb is that it was never truly open source?

My understanding is there was never a source release for honeycomb
Sent from my SPH-D700 using xda premium

[email protected] said:
Isn't the problem with porting honeycomb is that it was never truly open source?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea, that is, AFAIK, why there was never a CM8. I don't think it would be worth OP's time to try to reverse-engineer a Honeycomb tablet and shoehorning it into the KF.
However, the OP might want to donate some of their time to the ICS port
It is open source after all...

[email protected] said:
Isn't the problem with porting honeycomb is that it was never truly open source?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I believe Google released the source for Honeycomb when they released the source for ICS
Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk

Hit up this Google announcement, they did indeed release the source.
This release includes the full history of the Android source code
tree, which naturally includes all the source code for the Honeycomb
releases. However, since Honeycomb was a little incomplete, we want
everyone to focus on Ice Cream Sandwich. So, we haven't created any
tags that correspond to the Honeycomb releases (even though the
changes are present in the history.)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
groups.google dot com/forum/#!topic/android-building/T4XZJCZnqF8
The only thing that I really want to know is if there is a significant driver difference between ICS and Honeycomb. If there is, then there is a reason to try to port 3.0 over because it would have more driver support. There are 3.0 devices out in the wild. If there isn't a driver difference between 3.0 and 4.0, then it's futile and all efforts should be spent on 4.0.

theholyfork said:
I believe Google released the source for Honeycomb when they released the source for ICS
Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Indeed.
And when they released the source for ICS, they elaborated on why they included Honeycomb in the Source tree: To essentially display the hacks they were forced to use to push Honeycomb to market. Honeycomb was never AOSP'd because it wasn't reliable for wider use.
Based upon the fact that Google was basically too ashamed to release Honeycomb to AOSP, I don't think it would make much sense to target a broken platform (Honeycomb).
IMO, if you're going to spend time trying to work on getting a more tablet-oriented version of Android running, it's probably going to be *easier* to work with ICS than Honeycomb. Moreover your contributions could assist the greater KF community in getting a stable base of ICS for all.

The ways to get full ICS on Atrix

There is a great description of the ways to get ICS on Atrix from crnkoj:
crnkoj said:
So lets try to get some light into it, the issue about hw acceleration for the atrix is that, even now that nvidia released proper ICS binaries, those are made for recent kernel versions (post 2.6.39 and 3.x versions), those libs are floating around and are accessible to most people who would want to build stuff with hw acceleration, the problem on the atrix however is we only have 2.6.32 kernel sources from motorola, which in term means all the libs floating around are incompatible and useless. Now there would be two general ways of fixing this: 1. get libs that work with 2.6.32 kernels but are ics compatible (most improbable, except if moto leaks them and is still to lazy to move on from the 2.6.32 kernel) 2. get or make post 2.6.39 kernel sources that have the atrix's proprietary drivers including or rewritten (actually more probable, but still quite low chances, except if moto releases and ICS build for the photon/atrix or someone knows, has the time and will to write these code from scratch for the newer kernel versions). So as you can see this is quite a grim outlook, its still being worked on by community devs as far as my information are up-to-date, but i dont know which aproach they are choosing. There is however a minor glimpse of hope, since the move to integrate android drivers in the mainline/mainstream linux kernel is happening in the 3.3 kernel version (there are 3.2.x versions as of now), so this might be actually the best bet, hoping that most of the atrix proprietary drivers will be supported in it, one could just use the "nvidia libs floating around", another thing is nvidia is maintaining their own tegra2/3 kernel sources, so combined with the 3.3 move to android drivers and nvidia implementing support for tegra into their sources, it might not look so grim for us anymore, but this is all a developing story.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Also, there is another comment from one of the CM developers:
OK, since so many people are asking: The reason I'm doing the OMAP devices first is because the fine folks at Texas Instruments have, as before, published their reference code. (and Google's current reference device, the SGN, is an OMAP4, which also helps considerably).
The Optimus 2X (and its TMoUS brother, the G2x) is a Tegra2, and nVidia has, as always, published a total amount of zero useful lines of code; at this point, my time is better employed at getting CM9 off the ground with devices in which I can write code than it would be at figuring out how the hell to support old tegra binaries. It'll happen, but not in the near future.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
According to this, there are some plans of CM-developers to make some kind of wrapper to use GB tegra binaries for ICS on GB kernel. Great!
Also, a question from me. LG has announced ICS on O2X. Will this release help us? I saw that some developers used O2X GB binaries for Atrix, and it worked even better Can we do the same trick with ICS binaries and get fully working ICS on ICS kernel?

v.k said:
Also, a question from me. LG has announced ICS on O2X. Will this release help us? I saw that some developers used O2X GB binaries for Atrix, and it worked even better Can we do the same trick with ICS binaries and get fully working ICS on ICS kernel?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You can never be sure on the software world, but I hope so. A Motorola ICS release would definitely be better though.

Interesting information, thank you!

Easier said than done...
But thanks for sharing the info.
Sent from my Atrix 4G using Tapatalk

Hopefully something will get worked out. I have no plans on leaving this phone as I love the FP scanner too much

if i'm correct, samsung's galaxy r and captivate glide are both tegra 2 phones and they run on the 2.6.36 kernel, which supports hw acceleration to a certain degree, does this help us?

NVDIA TEGRA Documentation to be Released

Will this help development of ICS and JB ROMS? http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/23/nvidia-to-offer-up-documentation-for-tegra-graphics-core/
This should solve the video camera issues and other issues I think.
It's the documentation for the Tegra chips.

Looks like a good news and a bit of light for ICS+JB for our Atrix. Lets keep waiting...

No idea, but good find nevertheless.

Assuming this is released, what else will be needed to release a stable CM9?

It really depends on whats is going to be released. We don't know if its going to be useful yet.
Sent from my MB860 using xda app-developers app

Yeah it will help even to make better kernels, is a shame that my Atrix touchscreen died totally two days ago (thread reported will move soon, does not belong here).

RAFAMP said:
Assuming this is released, what else will be needed to release a stable CM9?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Once Tegra2 graphic driver source is released, Atrix devs then just simply update and compile the expecting module (.ko file) to put into the kernel of their roms

hainguyen273 said:
Once Tegra2 graphic driver source is released, Atrix devs then just simply update and compile the expecting module (.ko file) to put into the kernel of their roms
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you for your replies, guys!
So, with the graphics drivers into the kernel we would get 100% working roms?

RAFAMP said:
Thank you for your replies, guys!
So, with the graphics drivers into the kernel we would get 100% working roms?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes.

fviero said:
Yes.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I hope it's soon then!

hainguyen273 said:
Once Tegra2 graphic driver source is released, Atrix devs then just simply update and compile the expecting module (.ko file) to put into the kernel of their roms
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not particularly knowledgable about the ins and outs of Nvidia's modules so I might be wrong here, but I seem to recall a dev on this forum saying that is wasn't just a matter of the binaries being compiled against a different kernel (which could be worked around if it was just version checking), but that it depends upon functionality that only exists in newer kernel versions.
If somebody on this forum were skilled enough/had the time to donate to port the Nvidia 3.1.10 sources to the Atrix, we could have fully functional ICS/JB today. But it's not reasonable to expect the few skilled kernel devs here to make up for Motorola's slack.
Over in the One X forum, richardtrip has ported the reference 3.1.10 kernel using only a few bits of hTC code for the camera, so it is certainly possible for somebody without 'inside knowledge' to do, but it has taken him months of hard work. (we're on 2.6.39 'till hTC's official jellybean drops, which uses a 3.1.10 kernel anyway)

Well.. there is still the matter of the fingerprint scanner beyond the kernel. But we can't get too greedy now can we?

thantos said:
Well.. there is still the matter of the fingerprint scanner beyond the kernel. But we can't get too greedy now can we?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The phone would probably be functional without a fingerprint driver, though.

This is not kernel module source they are releasing; they are just saying they are willing to provide more information to the opensource community. NVIDIA has recently indicated they may provide documentation to those working on the nouveau drivers (opensource NVIDIA PC drivers); under an NDA. Meaning that they will provide the documentation to those that work on the opensource driver but not allow the information to be shared. For this to be helpful we would need the documentation provided to someone who is working on opensource Tegra drivers; which I do not believe there is anyone. So this would probably be picked up by those working on the nouveau drivers. Best case if all the information is provided and they decide to work on it it would probably be at least a year before we would have anything stable for use.

thantos said:
Well.. there is still the matter of the fingerprint scanner beyond the kernel. But we can't get too greedy now can we?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, same for the lapdock.
Enviado desde mi MB860 usando Tapatalk 2