Related
There is hope for Honeycomb on our tablets! The og moto droid recently can run Honeycomb. So hopefully when the sourcecode is released it will run swell on the Archos 101. http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=13573812#post13573812
Even the G1 can run honeycomb (it was the pretty-first android device in the world^^)
But the problems are the source, and i don't think that google will release the source code, no matter why...
But i've hope for ice cream sandwich (will released ~Q4 of 2011)
This will be Android 4.0 and it will comprise Honeycomb and Gingerbread
i'm not sold on the idea that it'll work on the our gen 8's
Porting Touchscreen Drivers
Hi,
AS I understand it, the major problem is the touch screen driver.
Reading the posts here, I don't understand how can u port a driver without the source code of the current driver from Archos.
As there is no current open source driver for this screen (and yes, I have read the "Porting Touchscreen Drivers for ROM's - Instructions") So the driver needs to be written from scrap or ported from the Archos source code.
So as I understand it, our best and might be the only chance for android 3.0 port is to ask for the driver source from Archos and port it, or wait for a port from Archos to android 3.0 .
Am I getting it wrong here ?
RaananM said:
Am I getting it wrong here ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A little bit is wrong
I summarize the hole story now:
The touchscreen drivers aren't the only problems about porting honeycomb.
If we're able to compile the drivers (as i wrote in my thread) we could bring the honeycomb Mod to run.... BUT we have no sources! Thats the biggest problem we've
There are a few honeycomb roms, but these one has many bugs (wifi dont work for example)
And i think with a little bit of work, we could get this roms to work, but with these big bugs te tablet is ruined and if google dont release the source code these roms not getting better.
I've hope on Ice Cream Sandwich.
Ok.
but we still can't do a thing without the source to the driver. Or are there any ROMs which support our screen ?
RaananM said:
1) But we still can't do a thing without the source to the driver.
2) Or are there any ROMs which support our screen ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1) Of course! We gonna compile our own drivers (kernel) please look here:http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=13944810#post13944810
2) Nope,unfortunality we've the only android device with this touchscreen
OK. been reading in your pointers and got to -
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=891056
Do you know where does the code in
git://gitorious.org/archos/archos-gpl-gen8.git (from the howto Makefile)
comes from ? Archos ? or is it pure android ?
Thanks for your help.
RaananM said:
OK. been reading in your pointers and got to -
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=891056
Do you know where does the code in
git://gitorious.org/archos/archos-gpl-gen8.git (from the howto Makefile)
comes from ? Archos ? or is it pure android?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its from Archos why you ask?
Thanks for your help.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then please klick thanks
Yes we need Touchscreen drivers, where as Vegancomb is already in development which is almost in B1 phase.
compyy said:
Yes we need Touchscreen drivers, where as Vegancomb is already in development which is almost in B1 phase.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes,but its not the only step we've to take...
Anyone who could do this (I've found an How to at the web )
what is Vegancomb
I'm pretty sure Google said they are not releasing HC source at all, period. The way I understand it is they have basically turned HC into a holdover for tablets they endorse till they compile everything together for phones and tablets with ice cream sandwich at which point the ice cream source will be released. It seems to be to keep just anybody from throwing HC on a device and selling it and possibly causing a bad user experience and making google look bad. Also most likely to help with fragmentation issues.
None of this of course helps us any....just what I've read and how I understood everything.
Sent from my ADR6400L using XDA App
sorry i meant VegaComb BETA 1.3
Was just wondering, since HTC has released the source for the Flyer would it now be possible for devs to port it to our little tablet that could?
+1
This is a fantastic idea if we can get some of these great developers to port this. I'd much rather have a Flyer rom than a MIUI rom which is just recently rolling out. I was considering getting one once they were available but heck you can't beat the NC in price plus it gives me something along with my HD2 to modify and keep my sanity lol...
Holy crap, didn't even know of it. Sounds great!
racks11479 said:
Holy crap, didn't even know of it. Sounds great!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Racks does this mean you'll give it a shot. I'm down to try but I'm not sure how compatible the kernel is and I really dread doing any kernel work.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
I'm excited with just possibility, wish I had more experience to actually give porting this a go.
This helps a lot. I've been trying to port this recently, but It has been slow. This will help a lot! (Can't start today, got OS X Lion to install)
That is awesome to hear.
Racks,
This would be amazing if you could get ahold of this system dump( source codes) and create one of your amazing ROMs to run off The SD card this would be fantastic. You and all the developers are doing great things for all us NC owners. Thanks for all you do...
Before people actually get ANY hopes up..
All HTC has done, is release the KERNEL source code, not the OS source code. The kernel code is worthless, since the Flyer has completely different hardware from us. This is not the OS source, so we are still where we were before; stuck trying to port Sense binaries..
I see...thanks for the info Mr Madcat ... I'm still somewhat new for the roms. On the nook...been using different roms on my HD2 forever but am still a noob in the NC forum.
Divine_Madcat said:
Before people actually get ANY hopes up..
All HTC has done, is release the KERNEL source code, not the OS source code. The kernel code is worthless, since the Flyer has completely different hardware from us. This is not the OS source, so we are still where we were before; stuck trying to port Sense binaries..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He's got a point. This isn't the Sense UI code, but it could help.
Boo I assumed it included os source.
I'd be pretty darn interested in that too...
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.
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?
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