Database Users

[REQUEST] N8000 Kernel Source

I am about to build a kernel for N8000. But my problem is I can not download from samsung open source site (Very Slow Connection).
Can someone please mirror the update7(MD1) for me on a fast server like dev-host, android file host, mediafire or etc...?
Here's the Samsung open source site:
http://opensource.samsung.com/reception/receptionSub.do?method=search&searchValue=GT-N8000
Thanks in advance.

You may use my GitHub repository, which has a branch "merge-to-ss-jb" that is just the vanilla Samsung kernel, backed by the complete Linux tree.
Also, if you're interested in a complete, up-to-date tree (and what I'm running on my own GNote) you may browse my "kernel-forward" branch.

kcrudup said:
You may use my GitHub repository, which has a branch "merge-to-ss-jb" that is just the vanilla Samsung kernel, backed by the complete Linux tree.
Also, if you're interested in a complete, up-to-date tree (and what I'm running on my own GNote) you may browse my "kernel-forward" branch.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks.
I have two questions if you don't mind.
1. Merge-to-ss-jb is the latest source (MD1)? Is it a good to go for a kernel to be based upon?
2. Is it alright with you that I base my kernel on your own kernel?
I appreciate it if you can help me with some kernel stuff as I am new to this.
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 4 Beta

csec said:
"merge-to-ss-jb" is the latest source (MD1)?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, it's essentially the official Linux kernel source up to version 3.0.31, overlaid with a cleaned-up version of the 1st Samsung JB kernel release, then each subsequent Samsung Open-Source Release (latest is "#7") is overlaid on top of that. If you build the HEAD of that branch, you'll have a vanilla Samsung kernel as of XXMCD1.
Is it alright with you that I base my kernel on your own kernel?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Of course! The entire Linux kernel is built upon Public collaboration; we all share from each other. My kernel has a few selected bits here and there from diverse places like CyanogenMod, Francisco Franco, Xstacy, the upstream kernel, Qualcomm, NVidia ...
I used to post my built kernel up in the ROM threads I used to use on my GNote, but someone complained and I don't really feel like being bothered with my own thread (don't have time for the inevitable newbie SPAM) so until if/when I do go "public" with it, the "kernel-forward" branch on GitHub is the best place to get what I'm running now.

kcrudup said:
Yeah, it's essentially the official Linux kernel source up to version 3.0.31, overlaid with a cleaned-up version of the 1st Samsung JB kernel release, then each subsequent Samsung Open-Source Release (latest is "#7") is overlaid on top of that. If you build the HEAD of that branch, you'll have a vanilla Samsung kernel as of XXMCD1.
Of course! The entire Linux kernel is built upon Public collaboration; we all share from each other. My kernel has a few selected bits here and there from diverse places like CyanogenMod, Francisco Franco, Xstacy, the upstream kernel, Qualcomm, NVidia ...
I used to post my built kernel up in the ROM threads I used to use on my GNote, but someone complained and I don't really feel like being bothered with my own thread (don't have time for the inevitable newbie SPAM) so until if/when I do go "public" with it, the "kernel-forward" branch on GitHub is the best place to get what I'm running now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Great!
Thanks again.
Sent from my GT-N8000 using Tapatalk HD

csec said:
Great!
Thanks again.
Sent from my GT-N8000 using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Heard that the published sources have different wi-fi drivers than preinstalled stock kernel.
This is the main reason of allshare cast not working with custom kernels (on the contrary, some s3 custom kernels DO SUPPORT allshare cast), even if status=official and flash counter=0.
Anyone can confirm?
Anyone has the proper ones or know which one (i.e. from a different samsung device) to use?

gitHub link dead

FXP vs CM?

Not really sure where this belongs, so Mods, please feel free to move it.
Given all the changes within CyanogenMod recently, and the formation of Cyanogen as a business, what's likely to happen to the FXP team? I know Kali has already said he won't develop CM any more.
Everyone has their own views on the politics of the situation, and this isn't really about that.
Just saying, guys, that if you happened to leave CM and develop your own AOSP-based ROM, I'm sure you'd have a lot of followers

Probably OmniRom.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/forumdisplay.php?f=2601
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=46423532#post46423532
Apparently the XZ is up and running.

I'm using cm10.1.3 (stable version), with one modification (softkey decreases for 32DP, has this mod here in the forum) and I am fully satisfied.
No bug's, clean, smooth and beautiful automony battery.
I recommend.

Ooh Omnirom looks interesting,
Time to sync sources while I'm at work...
Sent from my C6603 using Tapatalk

fards said:
Ooh Omnirom looks interesting,
Time to sync sources while I'm at work...
Sent from my C6603 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
patiently waiting for a yuga release..time for something fresh.

ckyy said:
patiently waiting for a yuga release..time for something fresh.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think there'll be official releases out very soon, but I'll have a look at it later on when I get chance and see how it builds and runs.
No point trying to build on my machine at work, it's steamdriven!
If the build works I'll post it . Surprised @pulser_g2 hasn't posted one already

Well @fards if it runs well....it'd be nice if you could put a build up for us to have a sneak peak
Sent from my C6603 using Tapatalk

Now I've had a chance to take a look at it (not built anything I'm still looking at device trees etc) I'm a bit underwhelmed.
There's more CM and less AOSP than I'd like, lots more CM.
Going to try merging Pabx brilliant Aosp with this too see if I can get anywhere.
Don't expect anything quick, if I can motivate myself to churn through it!

No rush @fards. Not exactly an obligation to do it. Thanks again.
Sent from my C6603 using Tapatalk

tbh at the moment the entire project just appears to be a fork of CM.
far too much of it for my tastes.
I'd wish they'd started with a pure aosp base.

fards said:
tbh at the moment the entire project just appears to be a fork of CM.
far too much of it for my tastes.
I'd wish they'd started with a pure aosp base.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh dear. Back to the usual aosp rom then

@ fards
omnirom started from pure AOSP as compare to cyanogemod
---------- Post added at 12:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:40 PM ----------
@ fards
omnirom started from pure AOSP as compare to cyanogemod

xZain69 said:
@ fards
omnirom started from pure AOSP as compare to cyanogemod
---------- Post added at 12:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:40 PM ----------
@ fards
omnirom started from pure AOSP as compare to cyanogemod
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I suggest you go take a proper look at the github, then come back and say "sorry they are using mostly cm".
The apq kernel is the cm one(didn't look at the others close enough to care). Other device trees are cm. The git structure is cm.
www.github.com/omnirom
https://github.com/omnirom/android_kernel_sony_apq8064
Code:
defconfigs: debranding
We're not a part of cyanogenmod any more. Also to avoid anyone else
having to do this, let's make the names generic to facilitate cross-
project
Change-Id: I89b6626636d568b36b9979272c6099fd074840e3
That changes the name only of the cm defconfigs. THESE are Not aosp, they are cm based.
Ergo it's a cm fork.
https://github.com/omnirom/android_device_sony_qcom-common
Code:
README.md
Copyright 2013 - The CyanogenMod Project
android_device_sony_qcom-common
Sent from my C6603 using Tapatalk

fards said:
I suggest you go take a proper look at the github, then come back and say "sorry they are using mostly cm".
The apq kernel is the cm one(didn't look at the others close enough to care). Other device trees are cm. The git structure is cm.
www.github.com/omnirom
https://github.com/omnirom/android_kernel_sony_apq8064
Code:
defconfigs: debranding
We're not a part of cyanogenmod any more. Also to avoid anyone else
having to do this, let's make the names generic to facilitate cross-
project
Change-Id: I89b6626636d568b36b9979272c6099fd074840e3
That changes the name only of the cm defconfigs. THESE are Not aosp, they are cm based.
Ergo it's a cm fork.
https://github.com/omnirom/android_device_sony_qcom-common
Code:
README.md
Copyright 2013 - The CyanogenMod Project
android_device_sony_qcom-common
Sent from my C6603 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
@fards : Have a word with yourself mate ;
The git structure is the defacto standard as used by every rom who hosts on github , PA/Omni/CM.
You cannot have sub directories in your user namespace on github so you cannot represent things in the same way as you would with your own git server with a gitweb/gtiles frontend
The device trees are ported from cm for convience the rest of the project uses repo's forked from AOSP or the AOSP it's self
So instead of scanning one repo's commit messages and making a conclusion. I would suggest you read the default manifest as well to see where the sources are pulled from
https://github.com/omnirom/android/blob/android-4.3/default.xml

fards said:
I suggest you go take a proper look at the github, then come back and say "sorry they are using mostly cm".
The apq kernel is the cm one(didn't look at the others close enough to care). Other device trees are cm. The git structure is cm.
www.github.com/omnirom
https://github.com/omnirom/android_kernel_sony_apq8064
Code:
defconfigs: debranding
We're not a part of cyanogenmod any more. Also to avoid anyone else
having to do this, let's make the names generic to facilitate cross-
project
Change-Id: I89b6626636d568b36b9979272c6099fd074840e3
That changes the name only of the cm defconfigs. THESE are Not aosp, they are cm based.
Ergo it's a cm fork.
https://github.com/omnirom/android_device_sony_qcom-common
Code:
README.md
Copyright 2013 - The CyanogenMod Project
android_device_sony_qcom-common
Sent from my C6603 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Andrew Dodd (Entropy512) has been one of the major Sony contributor to CyanogenMod, so were a few people that are helping us on Omni. Just because one device tree has been taken off an existing CyanogenMod repository doesn't mean we are a CM fork. It would be shooting ourselves in the foot to start device trees from the ground up again.
Besides some device trees, everything else has been up from AOSP. Therefore, we're not a CM fork.

[KERNEL] Bacon Official Kernel source

The kernel has been open sourced, by CM, as any OEM should do when device hits retail. That means a great step for us, ROM developers. We may discuss findings for reference on future development here.
Link to source code: https://github.com/CyanogenMod/android_kernel_oneplus_msm8974
By the way, it's not only useful for the OnePlus One, seems that it's interesting for Find 7 as they borrow some code from it, worthy to read.

Oh Gr8 news ! Hope we could get custom kernel on OPO soon
Sent from my One using XDA Premium 4 mobile app

I am hoping we get one soon also.
Sent from my One using Tapatalk

SferaDev said:
The kernel has been open sourced, by CM, as any OEM should do when device hits retail. That means a great step for us, ROM developers. We may discuss findings for reference on future development here.
Link to source code: https://github.com/CyanogenMod/android_kernel_oneplus_msm8974
By the way, it's not only useful for the OnePlus One, seems that it's interesting for Find 7 as they borrow some code from it, worthy to read.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Mind putting together the flashable zip of the stock kernel so that users who go custom kernel flashing (Franco for now) can fall back to the stock kernel?

A flashable .zip would be great

@SferaDev Thanks for this, I will be using this to build a kernel for our devices

Gamma control is out:
0f98e789af8c12ce3687cbe4515b429aa1e031a3 video: mdss: Add predefined gamma selection

I'm a bit confused.
So far, I know of two kernel sources: This one and AOSP-compatible sources released by OnePlus directly (OnePlusTech on github, can't post links at my postcount).
However, there are already custom kernels that claim to only work with CM11S, and others that claim to only work with CM11. I assume the latter are based on this source. So what's the current (official) branch for CM11S?

DrDaxxy said:
I'm a bit confused.
So far, I know of two kernel sources: This one and AOSP-compatible sources released by OnePlus directly (OnePlusTech on github, can't post links at my postcount).
However, there are already custom kernels that claim to only work with CM11S, and others that claim to only work with CM11. I assume the latter are based on this source. So what's the current (official) branch for CM11S?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
OnePlus AOSP is really new and I personally recommend CMs one. Their original intention was to keep as CM as possible...

SferaDev said:
OnePlus AOSP is really new and I personally recommend CMs one. Their original intention was to keep as CM as possible...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So kernels that don't work with the stock ROM are just based on a newer revision of the kernel in CM's repo, and older revisions in there would boot CM11S just fine?

DrDaxxy said:
So kernels that don't work with the stock ROM are just based on a newer revision of the kernel in CM's repo, and older revisions in there would boot CM11S just fine?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I haven't faced ANY kernel that doesn't work...

A flashable zip will be great! Can any expert help on this?

[Kernel][Linaro] Stock KK kernel for Falcon

This is a near stock falcon 4.4.4 kernel built with the latest Linaro toolchain (Linaro GCC 4.9-2014.12) for all of those who prefer stock kernels and absolutely need those 10 extra points in Antutu
Differences from stock are just a few Cortex-A7 optimizations, F2FS patches from mainline 3.18 and linaro toolchain.
All credit goes to @bedalus, who started his kernel thread for Peregrine, fixed all the small bugs that made compiling with newer Linaro toolchains impossible and cherry picked all those F2FS patches.
Sources and tools used:
MotorolaMobilityLLC/kernel-msm
MotorolaMobilityLLC/vendor-qcom-opensource-wlan-prima
bedalus' patches
Christopher83's Linaro Toolchain
My repo, where all sources are merged
Changelog:
falcon_stock_4.4.4_linaro_4.9.3.zip
- stock kernel
- added necessary patches to make it compile with linaro
- some Cortex-A7 optimizations
falcon_kernel_4.4.4_v2.zip
- same as falcon_stock_4.4.4_linaro_4.9.3.zip
- filesystem patches in line with mainline linux 3.18
- removed some debug info
The zip can be flashed with TWRP or CWM. Not flashable through fastboot.

Thanks @knizmi. I think stock users will appreciate this

Anyone tested? How the battery?
Wysłane z MOTO G

Dizzyrul3z said:
Anyone tested? How the battery?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is the stock kernel, so the batttery is as good as with stock kernel (you really can´t make it much better in any way). These screenshots are taken after some 7 hours of sleep.

Works pretty good on XT1031. Nice work! Any chance you could make a build with the kexec hardboot patch to use it with multirom?

I immediately noticed a performance improvement after flashing this kernel. Thanks!

Hi @knizmi
I said wait til I push a new branch, but I figure it's easier if you pull just a patch with
Code:
wget https://github.com/bedalus/moggy/commit/ead900a02071506c267fdebd292cbb2cdb31f4bd.patch
then you can apply it with
Code:
git am ead900a02071506c267fdebd292cbb2cdb31f4bd.patch
This is my preferred way to grab commits. Did you add my repo as a remote?

Battery life is really good on this kernel thank u dev
Sent from my XT1032 using XDA Free mobile app

bedalus said:
Hi @knizmi
I said wait til I push a new branch, but I figure it's easier if you pull just a patch with
Code:
wget https://github.com/bedalus/moggy/commit/ead900a02071506c267fdebd292cbb2cdb31f4bd.patch
then you can apply it with
Code:
git am ead900a02071506c267fdebd292cbb2cdb31f4bd.patch
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks a bunch, this should really make merging those patches easy!
bedalus said:
This is my preferred way to grab commits. Did you add my repo as a remote?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have added your repo as a remote now. I was fighting with git last week quite a bit (never used that devil's tool before), but now I think I am getting used to it. For my first build I've just "patched" those files with gedit...

syrkles said:
Battery life is really good on this kernel thank u dev
Sent from my XT1032 using XDA Free mobile app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the heads up, but compiling someone else's sources doesn't make me a dev

New version uploaded.
falcon_kernel_4.4.4_v2.zip
- same as falcon_stock_4.4.4_linaro_4.9.3.zip
- filesystem patches in line with mainline linux 3.18
- removed some debug info
Thanks @bedalus.

amarc78 said:
Any chance you could make a build with the kexec hardboot patch to use it with multirom?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry, the aim of this is to stay as close to stock as possible and only add optimizations/update drivers.

knizmi said:
For my first build I've just "patched" those files with gedit...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you've got my repo as a remote you should be able to see my commits with
Code:
git log -- bedalus/moggy
depending on what you named your remote.
Once you see what commits you want, copy their hashes (the long string of letters/numbers) then
Code:
git cherry-pick *hash*
If there's a problem with the cherry-pick you can fix it manually with
Code:
git mergetool
or abort with [git cherry-pick --abort[/code]
I've installed meld as my mergetool. I'm using a debian derivative so I did
Code:
sudo apt-get install meld
That's a pretty comprehensive quick-start guide to cherry-picking from any remotes you've fetched.

Cannot downgrade to default stock.
can you make a zip with libs to go back.

everb00b said:
Cannot downgrade to default stock.
can you make a zip with libs to go back.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Here you go: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2649763

That zip doesn't have libs. I made a zip for this a while ago, but it doesn't completely put everything back to stock. The best way seems to be to reflash stock ROM zip.

amarc78 said:
That zip doesn't have libs. I made a zip for this a while ago, but it doesn't completely put everything back to stock. The best way seems to be to reflash stock ROM zip.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You mean in the thread I've posted. I've thought that too at the beginning, but they are there separately, look for Stock Kernel Modules: [XT1032] - 4.4.2 | 4.4.3 | 4.4.4 | 4.4.4 (GPE) | 5.0.1 (GPE) | [XT1033] (Dual-SIM) - 4.4.4. You just have to flash two zips instead of one.

Ahh, I forgot that was there. I have XT1031. Are the 1032 libs the same?
Edit: never mind. They look the same.

amarc78 said:
Ahh, I forgot that was there. I have XT1031. Are the 1032 libs the same?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not sure, you can try. If there is a problem you can always reflash stock /system, backup those modules and perhaps send them to @lost101

bedalus said:
If you've got my repo as a remote you should be able to see my commits
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you for the info again. You are very helpful.
Do I understand it correctly that I need to fetch your repo before I can start cherry-picking? Searching around the internet , it looks like it. I may give it a try one day, but for now I will stick with git am, which seems like the perfect tool to pick single commits from many repos.

[KERNELSOURCE] MT6755 Sony XA DUAL Discussion: Is it possible to port?

Hi out there!
Today i've looked another time for kernel sources of our loved (and hated) phone.
The only full source i've found was this one on the Sony Website:
http://developer.sonymobile.com/downloads/xperia-open-source-archives/open-source-archive-for-33-2-a-2-37-and-33-2-b-2-37/
I don't have the time nor the knowledge of kerneldevelopment to check this out.
My question is:
Is it possible to port this Sony kernel, to have a working p9000 kernel, with the goal to have let's say DirtyUnicorn running?
greetings
vsrookie

vsrookie said:
Hi out there!
Today i've looked another time for kernel sources of our loved (and hated) phone.
The only full source i've found was this one on the Sony Website:
http://developer.sonymobile.com/downloads/xperia-open-source-archives/open-source-archive-for-33-2-a-2-37-and-33-2-b-2-37/
I don't have the time nor the knowledge of kerneldevelopment to check this out.
My question is:
Is it possible to port this Sony kernel, to have a working p9000 kernel, with the goal to have let's say DirtyUnicorn running?
greetings
vsrookie
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Kernel and ROM are 2 different things. We could get DU working on stock kernel, but we need valid device and vendor trees. Sometimes you can make them yourself, other times the manufacturers provide them.

Jonny said:
Kernel and ROM are 2 different things. We could get DU working on stock kernel, but we need valid device and vendor trees. Sometimes you can make them yourself, other times the manufacturers provide them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok. But an android system need functions from the kernel, don't they?
What do you exactly mean with device tree and vendor tree? The drivers for the components? If it is so, then can't we "just take them" and integrate in the kernel source?
greetings
vsrookie
Ps: Basically i need to read sonething about Android development. [emoji12]
Sent from my P9000 using XDA-Developers mobile app

vsrookie said:
Ok. But an android system need functions from the kernel, don't they?
What do you exactly mean with device tree and vendor tree? The drivers for the components? If it is so, then can't we "just take them" and integrate in the kernel source?
greetings
vsrookie
Ps: Basically i need to read sonething about Android development. [emoji12]
Sent from my P9000 using XDA-Developers mobile app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Vendor tree example >>> https://github.com/omnirom/android_vendor_omni
Device tree example >>> https://github.com/omnirom/android_device_sony_kitakami-common
The Android system does use functions from the kernel but its not really "aware" of doing so, you can run custom ROM's like DU, Omni etc from stock kernels most of the time without any issues.

So basically: When/If Elephone decides to release CM13, it's still possible they won't give us the vendor/device tree? So that's basically a byebye to porting roms?
Sorry, I'm a nub too.

Boristruyens said:
So basically: When/If Elephone decides to release CM13, it's still possible they won't give us the vendor/device tree? So that's basically a byebye to porting roms?
Sorry, I'm a nub too.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Tbh that is a massive probability, making device and vendor trees is not non-trivial and is a lot of work. For instance the HTC 10 still doesn't have a stable CM build, and there are some hard hitters in the AOSP dev world that own that device. I'll have a look and see what I can do but I'm an app developer and an apk editor (i.e. Java and Smali are more my languages than C/C++) more than a source builder so I might not be able to do much.

Can i use it for making recovery for moto m

The P9000 has a kernel on github anyway ...