Database Users

Official ICS Beta released for ARC S, Neo V and Ray

I dont really understand why only for this devices but please someone make it work on the Play!
Link: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=20329850#post20329850

From xperia blog -
The alpha ROM will only work on three Xperia phones: arc S, neo V and ray. For those Xperia arc and Xperia neo users wondering whether they should try this, you are warned not to as the phones have different partition layouts compared to the arc S and neo V.
EDIT- Was meant to explain why it was only for those devices ; they prob have the same partition layout.

Nabeel_Nabs said:
From xperia blog -
The alpha ROM will only work on three Xperia phones: arc S, neo V and ray. For those Xperia arc and Xperia neo users wondering whether they should try this, you are warned not to as the phones have different partition layouts compared to the arc S and neo V.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But that does not mean that a dev can not change it a bit to make it work on the play correctly.

im downloading the arcs build now to examine it

i would take al look on this.
Maybe i get it working for the play (would be nice)

nickholtus said:
i would take al look on this.
Maybe i get it working for the play (would be nice)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
nick extract the kernel from the arcs build and try flashing that with your ICS update.zip
might work!

In the arc forum they confirmed that the arc s build works on the arc. Maybe it works on the play too?

directly flashing the files to play partly works, im working through fixing issues now
edit: ok currently stuck at : D/dalvikvm( 630): GC_CONCURRENT freed 260K, 4% free 9790K/10119K, paused 2ms+3m
s
I/SurfaceFlinger( 647): SurfaceFlinger is starting
I/SurfaceFlinger( 647): SurfaceFlinger's main thread ready to run. Initializing
graphics H/W...
E/HAL ( 647): load: module=/system/lib/hw/gralloc.msm7x30.so
E/HAL ( 647): Cannot load library: link_image[1908]: 647 missing essentia
l tables
E/FramebufferNativeWindow( 647): Couldn't get gralloc module
E/SurfaceFlinger( 647): Display subsystem failed to initialize. check logs. exi
ting...
happens for both sensors and gralloc,

from wich phone are you using the files?
neo v arc s or ray

DJ_Steve said:
directly flashing the files to play partly works, im working through fixing issues now
edit: ok currently stuck at : D/dalvikvm( 630): GC_CONCURRENT freed 260K, 4% free 9790K/10119K, paused 2ms+3m
s
I/SurfaceFlinger( 647): SurfaceFlinger is starting
I/SurfaceFlinger( 647): SurfaceFlinger's main thread ready to run. Initializing
graphics H/W...
E/HAL ( 647): load: module=/system/lib/hw/gralloc.msm7x30.so
E/HAL ( 647): Cannot load library: link_image[1908]: 647 missing essentia
l tables
E/FramebufferNativeWindow( 647): Couldn't get gralloc module
E/SurfaceFlinger( 647): Display subsystem failed to initialize. check logs. exi
ting...
happens for both sensors and gralloc,
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That means exactly? Also did you use the arc version or the neo v version?

IE-coRe said:
That means exactly? Also did you use the arc version or the neo v version?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Edit: haha nick was quicker xD
oh i clicked the quote insetead the edit button. Sorry^^

arc s version, was first one i picked it means its missing something somewhere but im not certain what

But you where able to install it and it boots?

it flashes and attempts to boot but no display due to those errors, but adb is runnind (although i needed to slightly mod boot img to get adb )

okay... doomloard said he will take a look on the play when he is done with the arc. lets hope he can help.

ill keep playing also
---------- Post added at 06:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:45 PM ----------
my modified boot image that forces adb mode rather than mtp is available : http://build.streakdroid.com/bootic.img

maybe you can use neo v (did you replaced files in boot.img with some files from play boot.img?

what files would need replacing, other than for uevent maybe, ill look at that next

............

nickholtus said:
maybe you can try it with this kernel: http://www.multiupload.com/7K22QRYC05
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
what kernel is that and what phone is it for ?

Samsung note (N7000) wallpapercropper issue

Hi there.
I'm using OmniROM 20150520 (the final) on my N7000.
Some time ago I faced with problem: when I try to set wallpaper to lockscreen, after wallpaper chosen and cropping action expected, I'm getting message like "application "com.android.wallpapercropper" error".
Which could a reason of the problem be?
I'm using OmniROM a long time. Had no mentioned bug on prevoius versions and on the final one first time also. For now reinstallation of the firmware and dalvik's wipe give no results.

demonx993x said:
Hi there.
I'm using OmniROM 20150520 (the final) on my N7000.
Some time ago I faced with problem: when I try to set wallpaper to lockscreen, after wallpaper chosen and cropping action expected, I'm getting message like "application "com.android.wallpapercropper" error".
Which could a reason of the problem be?
I'm using OmniROM a long time. Had no mentioned bug on prevoius versions and on the final one first time also. For now reinstallation of the firmware and dalvik's wipe give no results.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not sure... N7000 has been abandoned for a long time, it was basically coasting on inertia for months. As the device no longer has a maintainer, nothing is going to get fixed.

Entropy512 said:
Not sure... N7000 has been abandoned for a long time, it was basically coasting on inertia for months. As the device no longer has a maintainer, nothing is going to get fixed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks Entropy512, I'm sure you are right. BTW, I saw only one new Android mod (based on CM12.1) for N7000, but it has no direct attention to Omni.
Nevertheless, it seems, the mentioned issue is not linked with FW own bugs because there was no problems first time after installation.
Suppose, the issue could be linked with errors of file system, or paths and permissions, or even third party software influence (unlikely).
I couldn't find algorithm of wallpapercropper work (where does it place current lockscreen wall files, how should them be named, which system files/properties does it change and to which files/folders should it have permissions) to try fixing manually.
Could you help me with this?

There is log of wallpapercropper operation, where errors appear, below (gotten by Catlog SW)
build.board: smdk4210
build.bootloader: unknown
build.brand: samsung
build.cpu_abi: armeabi-v7a
build.cpu_abi2: armeabi
build.device: n7000
build.display: omni_n7000-userdebug 4.4.4 KTU84P 560 test-keys
build.fingerprint: samsung/omni_n7000/n7000:4.4.4/KTU84P/560:userdebug/test-keys
build.hardware: smdk4210
build.host: devbox.omnirom.org
build.id: KTU84P
build.manufacturer: Samsung
build.model: GT-N7000
build.product: omni_n7000
build.radio: unknown
build.serial: 001a7a0708dc9e
build.tags: test-keys
build.time: 1432164566000
build.type: userdebug
build.user: jenkins
version.codename: REL
version.incremental: 560
version.release: 4.4.4
version.sdk_int: 19
11-12 21:49:32.698 I/ActivityManager(2362): START u0 {cmp=com.android.wallpapercropper/.LockscreenWallpaper} from pid 6093
11-12 21:49:32.923 I/ActivityManager(2362): Displayed com.android.wallpapercropper/.LockscreenWallpaper: +205ms
11-12 21:49:53.498 E/MediaStore(6148): at com.android.wallpapercropper.LockscreenWallpaper.cropImage(LockscreenWallpaper.java:232)
11-12 21:49:53.498 E/MediaStore(6148): at com.android.wallpapercropper.LockscreenWallpaper.onActivityResult(LockscreenWallpaper.java:343)
11-12 21:49:53.563 E/AndroidRuntime(6148): Process: com.android.wallpapercropper, PID: 6148
11-12 21:49:53.563 E/AndroidRuntime(6148): java.lang.RuntimeException: Failure delivering result ResultInfo{who=null, request=1024, result=-1, data=Intent { dat=content://media/external/images/media/92730 flg=0x1 }} to activity {com.android.wallpapercropper/com.android.wallpapercropper.LockscreenWallpaper}: java.lang.NullPointerException: uriString
11-12 21:49:53.563 E/AndroidRuntime(6148): at com.android.wallpapercropper.LockscreenWallpaper.cropImage(LockscreenWallpaper.java:233)
11-12 21:49:53.563 E/AndroidRuntime(6148): at com.android.wallpapercropper.LockscreenWallpaper.onActivityResult(LockscreenWallpaper.java:343)
11-12 21:49:53.568 W/ActivityManager(2362): Force finishing activity com.android.wallpapercropper/.LockscreenWallpaper
11-12 21:49:54.068 W/ActivityManager(2362): Activity pause timeout for ActivityRecord{421b9250 u0 com.android.wallpapercropper/.LockscreenWallpaper t9 f}
11-12 21:49:55.778 I/WindowState(2362): WIN DEATH: Window{42191228 u0 com.android.wallpapercropper/com.android.wallpapercropper.LockscreenWallpaper}
11-12 21:49:55.778 I/ActivityManager(2362): Process com.android.wallpapercropper (pid 6148) has died.

Hello everyone, is there some info for me?

Hi there, still no any info?

I already gave you all the info you're going to get (unless you fix this yourself) in my last post - no one is maintaining this device any more and has not for over two years now, so it's not going to get fixed.

Entropy512 said:
I already gave you all the info you're going to get (unless you fix this yourself) in my last post - no one is maintaining this device any more and has not for over two years now, so it's not going to get fixed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I just hoped someone could clarify java exceptions).

Oreo 8.0

thought id share this with you guys
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJYXx3J-AWc

I want Android 8.0 Oreo for Motorola Moto Maxx/DROID TURBO, waiting for LineageOS 15, Resurrection Remix 5.9, etc.
Sent from my XT1254 using XDA Labs

I would expect it to arrive in March, probably with some bugs.

jeffkahlo777 said:
I want Android 8.0 Oreo for Motorola Moto Maxx/DROID TURBO, waiting for LineageOS 15, Resurrection Remix 5.9, etc.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It will take @bhb27 coding the current Motorola Marshmallow Quark kernel to Oreo -- the same way he coded it to work for Nougat.
Our previous CM dev @Skrilax_CZ did the original work back in early 2015, first coding Quark Motorola Kitkat kernel to work with Lollipop. Then when Lollipop Motorola source code was finally published he used actual Lollipop kernel in the CM releases. Once CM had a kernel for Quark, THEN other devs could "port" ROMs and just plug in the CM kernel.
@bhb27 started doing dev work about this time and released his own "custom" kernel with more features to complement the "stock" CM kernel @Skrilax_CZ coded. You could use 12.1 ROM (with Lollipop 5.1) with CM kernel or even RR Lollipop with CM kernel -- or use those ROMs and install @bhb27's custom kernel. But all the ROMs uses the CM (now LOS) kernel as "stock" kernel. It's what makes ALL the Quark ROMs possible in the first place.
(For our Quarks, even AOSP ROMs -- ALL ROMs -- use the CM kernel. They have to. There are no others. When Sunshine unlocked the Droid Turbo bootloader @Skrilax_CZ re-coded the Quark CM kernel to also work with XT1254 -- otherwise these custom ROMs would NOT be compatible for all Quarks. The kernel is the foundation.)
Then, when Motorola Marshmallow got released in late 2015, same thing. First a Lollipop kernel was coded to work with Marshmallow, then MONTHS later (July 2016, for XT1225) when Motorola released Marshmallow for Quark and then the kernel source code (September, October?) finally an actual Marshmallow kernel to work with Marshmallow. (Lollipop custom ROM for Quark beat official Motorola Lollipop and Quark Marshmallow custom ROM beat official Marshmallow by MONTHS.)
By this time @bhb27 had taken over all the kernel work, coding the basic "stock" kernel for all the Quark ROMs as well as his name-sake custom kernel.
When Nougat arrived, there was no official Nougat Quark kernel from Motorola -- so we had to keep using Marshmallow kernel. And @bhb27 did the work to let Nougat ROMs use that kernel.
Will be the same thing with Oreo. But @bhb27 still has to code it to work smoothly with Oreo.
Also, there is no more CM. We now have LOS as the "base". @bhb27 does not release official LOS ROMs, but that's where the device kernel files go that all devs pull from.
So, @bhb27 will use Marshmallow kernel in LOS Oreo tree to make a stock kernel for all ROMs. At that point he will release an Oreo ROM based on that work. (Right now he's the dev for both RR and crDroid ROMs. Last year he surprised us by releasing then-new Nougat crDroid first, whereas he had been dev for Marshmallow RR and Mokee, and RR was his favorite.)
@bhb27 will also probably release an advanced "standalone" custom kernel with more options, like he does now, but it's that base stock LOS kernel which is most important.
After he releases his Oreo kernel work, then other Quark devs can use that stock LOS Oreo Quark kernel to release their Oreo ROMs.
The kernel will be the foundation of any Oreo ROMs and it will all depend on @bhb27.
But don't pester him. It will be ready when it's ready.
__________
TLDR: @bhb27 is the man. He'll do the Oreo-compatible stock kernel first and then the first Oreo custom ROM. Everyone else will then follow with other ROMs.

ceelos218 said:
thought id share this with you guys
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJYXx3J-AWc
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I going have to check with my local church about that, I may not be able to work on Oreo....

how comes up with those videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twZggnNbFqo

bhb27 said:
how comes up with those videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twZggnNbFqo
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
first, technically a cross in general and period is sun god worship in itself. so if your church doesn't have any issues with a cross i don't see why it would care about a double cross.
second, that double cross is just on the oreo. it is the nabisco symbol. so if it is evil so is nabisco
I agree with you though where do people come up with this stuff

Safer, smarter, more powerful! All with the Movie trailers voice. Coming this fall*
*TBD

ready to provide support!
bhb27 said:
I going have to check with my local church about that, I may not be able to work on Oreo....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Mr bhb27(@bhb27) I would love to work upon the device once you're up for the kernel sources for our device for Oreo and I still want to work upon our quark and a plethora of Moto collection I have (Moto x 2013 , Moto G 2013 , Moto E 2014 , Moto G 2014 , Moto E 2015 LTE & Moto X Force ) .... And the collection will increase over time...
But the major problem I have is don't have any knowledge about compiling a ROM from the device tree and kernel sources (complete noob about that!) But would love to increase my knowledge about Android ROM development from the zero-level,so wonder if you could help me out!

I got impatient and I tried to build LOS 15 using the existing kernel. It didn't work (because of course it didn't).

GeekyTanuj said:
Mr bhb27(@bhb27) I would love to work upon the device once you're up for the kernel sources for our device for Oreo and I still want to work upon our quark and a plethora of Moto collection I have (Moto x 2013 , Moto G 2013 , Moto E 2014 , Moto G 2014 , Moto E 2015 LTE & Moto X Force ) .... And the collection will increase over time...
But the major problem I have is don't have any knowledge about compiling a ROM from the device tree and kernel sources (complete noob about that!) But would love to increase my knowledge about Android ROM development from the zero-level,so wonder if you could help me out!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you need to search on how is done what you wanna to do, simple things as build a ROM there is plenty of tutorial, kernel not so many but there is tutorial + my how to on kernel tread helps you to understand how I do build a kernel (of course is needed basic shell and/or kernel Knowledge, those are available is searches) or the readme in the device tree can explain the basic, I do this for years this is not a thing I learn over night took me years to now a little thing, some times took me weeks to do a very simple thing to work the things is if you wanna don't ever give it up, rest and try again later but don't just give it up, so you search about, like I wrote there is dedicated xda thread on how to build tihngs, you find those and post yours problems there, if is a quark specific help, open yours on general help thread and post the specific problem you have, but really search before you post anything somethings are simple like I wrote is just a question of patiently read and do exactly hat the tutorial says.
TheSt33v said:
I got impatient and I tried to build LOS 15 using the existing kernel. It didn't work (because of course it didn't).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
source is not ready yet for any device, even after it may not be ready for quark for some time... + kernel, device and vendor changes are needed...

GeekyTanuj said:
Mr bhb27(@bhb27) I would love to work upon the device once you're up for the kernel sources for our device for Oreo and I still want to work upon our quark and a plethora of Moto collection I have (Moto x 2013 , Moto G 2013 , Moto E 2014 , Moto G 2014 , Moto E 2015 LTE & Moto X Force ) .... And the collection will increase over time...
But the major problem I have is don't have any knowledge about compiling a ROM from the device tree and kernel sources (complete noob about that!) But would love to increase my knowledge about Android ROM development from the zero-level,so wonder if you could help me out!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well I've looked in the same way of you and now I've made it (twice actually (AEX and ViperOS)). Everything that I learned it was just searching here in XDA, taking a look on some videos at YouTube and Google it. But we can't forget the stuff necessary, like a strong computer with Linux (any distro it's fine) or Google Cloud, and, of course, a good internet and patience.
Just building it's simple when you look for the "real" development (working in kernels, device trees, and vendors)
[EDIT]Have a bunch of good ROMs to build. Try look for someone that you liked.

It feels like I'm getting really close, but I didn't get to test to see if it boots . Hopefully I can get it to recognize the device, install, then boot! If I get something stable then I will share it soon.

...

Hey @bhb27. Sorry to bug you, but quick question. I got the kernel to compile (and ROM) but I still get the unfound device (error 7 in TWRP). If I bypass and flash it anyhow, I see my boot logo, then it just keeps resetting back to the bootloader.
I'm sure I've just configured something incorrectly in the kernel, but do you have any suggestion on how I could trace it? It almost makes me think it's not even finding the image. I've only seen methods involving a custom ttl terminal board when I Google it (other than trying to edit the kernel command line using fastboot). Don't want to take up your time but just curious if you had any idea. I'm betting it will just require your knowledge at a later time (since sources aren't ready other than my modifications).
Thanks again.

calsurferpunk said:
Hey @bhb27. Sorry to bug you, but quick question. I got the kernel to compile (and ROM) but I still get the unfound device (error 7 in TWRP). If I bypass and flash it anyhow, I see my boot logo, then it just keeps resetting back to the bootloader.
I'm sure I've just configured something incorrectly in the kernel, but do you have any suggestion on how I could trace it? It almost makes me think it's not even finding the image. I've only seen methods involving a custom ttl terminal board when I Google it (other than trying to edit the kernel command line using fastboot). Don't want to take up your time but just curious if you had any idea. I'm betting it will just require your knowledge at a later time (since sources aren't ready other than my modifications).
Thanks again.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you need to update the kernel to boot O, there is a lot of changes to it, like I wrote before shamu and victara must have the changes... shamu lineage source are update for O already, victara is not update yet but you may find the repo of developer releasing the ROM on they threads...

bhb27 said:
you need to update the kernel to boot O, there is a lot of changes to it, like I wrote before shamu and victara must have the changes... shamu lineage source are update for O already, victara is not update yet but you may find the repo of developer releasing the ROM on they threads...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for your patience. I've been looking at a bootable Oreo Shamu build source. I'm guessing it involves lots of kconfig changes and such, just wanted to see if you thought it was anything simple (which I doubted). I appreciate your input.

calsurferpunk said:
Thanks for your patience. I've been looking at a bootable Oreo Shamu build source. I'm guessing it involves lots of kconfig changes and such, just wanted to see if you thought it was anything simple (which I doubted). I appreciate your input.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
this is what I'm toking about, they start on September 8
https://github.com/LineageOS/android_kernel_moto_shamu/compare/518881a...f59682b
you can easy cherry-pick them but they will probably conflict and you will need to fix the conflicts and probably add something else to be able to build as the source are not 100% equal that repo may have a change be used by those new changes that doesn't exist on quark yet and some of those like the SU one's alredy exist so you can skip them... binder changes can make stock libraries stop work so many features will need rework...
there may also be device tree changes needed to be done related t those kernel changes... after you can boot probably will be need to work on a lot of libs or not if the kernel binder changes don't mess up the vendor libs features...

bhb27 said:
this is what I'm toking about, they start on September 8
https://github.com/LineageOS/android_kernel_moto_shamu/compare/518881a...f59682b
you can easy cherry-pick them but they will probably conflict and you will need to fix the conflicts and probably add something else to be able to build as the source are not 100% equal that repo may have a change be used by those new changes that doesn't exist on quark yet and some of those like the SU one's alredy exist so you can skip them... binder changes can make stock libraries stop work so many features will need rework...
there may also be device tree changes needed to be done related t those kernel changes... after you can boot probably will be need to work on a lot of libs or not if the kernel binder changes don't mess up the vendor libs features...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks. I'll check it out and see how far I can get. Anything I can contribute to getting it ultimately working will be worth it. I had to make a good number (not major) of device changes already so I'm comfortable with that as well.

bhb27 said:
this is what I'm toking about, they start on September 8
https://github.com/LineageOS/android_kernel_moto_shamu/compare/518881a...f59682b
you can easy cherry-pick them but they will probably conflict and you will need to fix the conflicts and probably add something else to be able to build as the source are not 100% equal that repo may have a change be used by those new changes that doesn't exist on quark yet and some of those like the SU one's alredy exist so you can skip them... binder changes can make stock libraries stop work so many features will need rework...
there may also be device tree changes needed to be done related t those kernel changes... after you can boot probably will be need to work on a lot of libs or not if the kernel binder changes don't mess up the vendor libs features...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hey again @bhb27. I just finished incorporating all of those changes and updating other files (mainly in the fs. directory). It still just starts to boot, but quickly goes back to the bootloader again. Any other suggestions on what I could check to see what causes that?
I'm leaning towards a file partition change that it doesn't recognize now, but just a random guess. It still doesn't install the .zip either (still error 7) unless I modify the device check assert (making me think it can't find the build.prop (due to some other format/partition change).
Here's a link to my repos and the .zip in case it helps. Thanks again for the help but I understand if you don't want to get too involved at this point.
Repo: https://github.com/calsurferpunk
Zips: https://androidfilehost.com/user/?w=settings-dev-files&flid=218810
Update 1: I'm also checking to see if there was anything specific about the cm-14.1 to lineage-15.0 device tree and it looks like there might be a little more.
https://github.com/LineageOS/android_device_moto_shamu/compare/lineage-15.0
Update 2: It looks like everything should be good with the device setup as well. I'm wondering if it's more of a TWRP issue since I've seen references of needing a custom version to install AOSP 8.0/LOS 15 in other device forums.
Update 3: I noticed there were a couple kernel config flags missing according to:
https://source.android.com/devices/architecture/kernel/modular-kernels#core-kernel-requirements
CONFIG_IKCONFIG=y
CONFIG_IKCONFIG_PROC=y
Added those, but still no luck. I've been comparing device/kernel files locally in hopes of finding a key difference, but after seeing the kernel requirements match I'm still pretty lost.
Update 4: I was able to find the failed kernel boot log under:
/sys/fs/pstore/console-ramoops
It looks like the error preventing booting is from these lines (attached):
...
1.586240,2] init: init first stage started!
[ 1.586318,2] init: First stage mount skipped (missing/incompatible fstab in device tree)
[ 1.586345,2] init: Skipped setting INIT_AVB_VERSION (not in recovery mode)
...
[ 2.131621,0] ueventd: fixup /sys/devices/virtual/stm401/stm401_as/rv_6axis_update_rate 1008 1008 660
[ 2.131679,0] ueventd: fixup /sys/devices/virtual/stm401/stm401_as/rv_9axis_update_rate 1008 1008 660
[ 2.145657,0] drv260x driver found: drv2605.
[ 2.146248,0] drv260x probe work succeeded[ 2.246181,0] ueventd: Coldboot took 0.310706 seconds
[ 2.255910,3] init: Command 'wait_for_coldboot_done' action=wait_for_coldboot_done returned 0 took 262.268ms.
[ 2.255959,3] init: processing action (mix_hwrng_into_linux_rng)
[ 2.256179,3] init: Mixed 512 bytes from /dev/hw_random into /dev/urandom
[ 2.256212,3] init: processing action (set_mmap_rnd_bits)
[ 2.256263,3] init: Cannot open for reading: /proc/sys/vm/mmap_rnd_bits
[ 2.256287,3] init: Unable to set adequate mmap entropy value!
[ 2.256303,3] init: Security failure...
[ 2.256318,3] init: panic: rebooting to bootloader
[ 2.256336,3] init: Reboot start, reason: reboot, rebootTarget: bootloader
[ 2.256367,3] init: android::WriteStringToFile open failed: No such file or directory
[ 2.256391,3] init: Shutdown timeout: 6
[ 2.256422,3] init: terminating init services
[ 2.256476,3] init: Terminating running services took 0.000134532 seconds with remaining services:0
[ 2.256892,3] init: vold not running, skipping vold shutdown
[ 2.357286,3] init: powerctl_shutdown_time_ms:100:0
[ 2.357305,3] init: Reboot ending, jumping to kernel
[ 2.658702,0] mdss_fb_release_all: try to close unopened fb 1! from pid:1 name:init
[ 2.658715,0] mdss_fb_release_all: try to close unopened fb 0! from pid:1 name:init
[ 2.659433,0] Restarting system with command 'bootloader'.
[ 2.659442,0] Current task:init(1) Parent task:swapper/0(0)
[ 2.659457,0] Going down for restart now
[ 2.660756,0] Calling SCM to disable SPMI PMIC arbiter
It appears to be related to not finding the file partitions and this: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/12/21/336 and https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/10/28/828.

Android 8.1 Development

Progress is being made many of the bugs are beginning to get fixed
Oreo roms that maybe created:
Lineage 15.1 (highly likely)
Nitrogen Os (by me and @ReversedPosix)
Bugs fixed in oreo generally:
Sound
Rild
Sim card ---->
Fixed By @Quarx2k (Telegram)
Bluetooth ---->
Thanks to these people this is possible @Olivier @ReversedPosix @EnesSastim @Myself5,
XDA:DevDB Information
Test developming, ROM for the Sony Xperia Z5
Contributors
Quantumkk123, QuantumKK123, Zacharias.Maladroit, olivier
ROM OS Version: 8.x Oreo
ROM Kernel: Linux 3.10.x
Based On: Aosp
Version Information
Status: Alpha/Beta (More things are working now)
Beta Release Date: 2018-05-05
Created 2018-05-10
Last Updated 2018-08-04

@Quantumkk123
you already got the ROM hooked up ?
please upload somewhere & write me a PM so I can take a look at it,
currently busy so kernel has to wait

Atm I think @zacharias.maladroit is reviewing the rom looking to edit the kernel so this rom can work on our phones I think also a few things need to be edited but yeah we might have an unofficial oreo Rom for the z5 and it will be the first

@Quantumkk123 top work! By seeing the features you listed, is this rom based on AOSP but with stock oreo things? :silly:
@zacharias.maladroit take your time. We just want this to work without irritating you guys. Nobody will ask for ETA. :silly: :highfive:

@balrajs99 to be honest Bro thank @zacharias.maladroit for telling me the similarities that Xperia x and z5 had in common however I figured out Machao_44 makes his rom differently to the newer ones (easier to modify) the only difference between this rom and the Xperia x is meta inf replaced with z5 along with ftf and build.prop see I tried the exact same thing with z3 + and successfully ported the z5 rom to it by changing the same things. However we don't know yet if zacharias.maladroit kernel can make rom boot or infinite boot loop we don't know but yeah that's everything and your most welcome I want this rom as much as you guys do.

Quantumkk123 said:
@balrajs99 to be honest Bro thank @zacharias.maladroit for telling me the similarities that Xperia x and z5 had in common however I figured out Machao_44 makes his rom differently to the newer ones (easier to modify) the only difference between this rom and the Xperia x is meta inf replaced with z5 along with ftf and build.prop see I tried the exact same thing with z3 + and successfully ported the z5 rom to it by changing the same things. However we don't know yet if zacharias.maladroit kernel can make rom boot or infinite boot loop we don't know but yeah that's everything and your most welcome I want this rom as much as you guys do.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok, I got it!

Quantumkk123 said:
@balrajs99 to be honest Bro thank @zacharias.maladroit for telling me the similarities that Xperia x and z5 had in common however I figured out Machao_44 makes his rom differently to the newer ones (easier to modify) the only difference between this rom and the Xperia x is meta inf replaced with z5 along with ftf and build.prop see I tried the exact same thing with z3 + and successfully ported the z5 rom to it by changing the same things. However we don't know yet if zacharias.maladroit kernel can make rom boot or infinite boot loop we don't know but yeah that's everything and your most welcome I want this rom as much as you guys do.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
At first glance this definitely looks nicer, the issue might be in the details though :silly:
Thanks

zacharias.maladroit said:
At first glance this definitely looks nicer, the issue might be in the details though :silly:
Thanks
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So @zacharias.maladroit whats happening how much of this rom needs to edited to fully work and how is the kernel doing?

Quantumkk123 said:
So @zacharias.maladroit whats happening how much of this rom needs to edited to fully work and how is the kernel doing?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
https://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=76479481&postcount=30
&
CONFIG_BT_MSM_SLEEP -> bluetooth driver differences
CONFIG_MSM_DCC => ?
CONFIG_QNS_SYSTEM=y
CONFIG_QUOTA=y
CONFIG_QUOTACTL=y
CONFIG_SDCARD_FS=y
CONFIG_SPLIT_PTLOCK_CPUS=999999
CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK_BITE_ON_BUG=y
# CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK_PANIC_ON_BUG is not set
CONFIG_MSM_RTB_SEPARATE_CPUS=y
CONFIG_PROC_PID_CPUSET=y
# CONFIG_QFMT_V1 is not set
CONFIG_QFMT_V2=y (quotas)
CONFIG_QUOTA_NETLINK_INTERFACE=y
CONFIG_QUOTA_TREE=y
CONFIG_SECURITY_SELINUX_BOOTPARAM_VALUE=1
CONFIG_SERIAL_CORE_CONSOLE=y
CONFIG_SERIAL_MSM_HSL_CONSOLE=y
ours:
CONFIG_USB_SERIAL=y
CONFIG_USB_SERIAL_CSVT=y
theirs:
# CONFIG_USB_SERIAL is not set
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/arm64/configs/diffconfig/suzu_diffconfig
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+CONFIG_MACH_SONY_SUZU=y
+CONFIG_NFC_PN547=y
+CONFIG_QPNP_SMBCHARGER_ID_POLL=y
+CONFIG_TOUCHSCREEN_CLEARPAD=y
+CONFIG_USB_MIRRORLINK=y
+CONFIG_TOUCHSCREEN_CLEARPAD_I2C=y
+CONFIG_TOUCHSCREEN_CLEARPAD_RMI_DEV=y
--- a/arch/arm64/configs/msm8994-perf_defconfig
+++ b/arch/arm64/configs/msm8994-perf_defconfig
@@ -243,13 +243,14 @@ CONFIG_PPPOPNS=y
CONFIG_PPP_ASYNC=y
CONFIG_PPP_SYNC_TTY=y
CONFIG_USB_USBNET=y
-CONFIG_CNSS=y
CONFIG_WCNSS_MEM_PRE_ALLOC=y
-CONFIG_CNSS_MAC_BUG=y
-CONFIG_CLD_LL_CORE=y
CONFIG_ATH_CARDS=y
CONFIG_WIL6210=m
CONFIG_E1000E=y
+CONFIG_CNSS_PCI=y
+CONFIG_CNSS_MAC_BUG=y
+CONFIG_CLD_LL_CORE=y
+CONFIG_BUS_AUTO_SUSPEND=y
CONFIG_INPUT_EVDEV=y
CONFIG_INPUT_EVBUG=m
CONFIG_KEYBOARD_GPIO=y
diff --git a/arch/arm64/configs/msm-perf_defconfig b/arch/arm64/configs/msm-perf_defconfig
index bfe14733b104..12a8d65cf3cd 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/configs/msm-perf_defconfig
+++ b/arch/arm64/configs/msm-perf_defconfig
@@ -220,7 +220,6 @@ CONFIG_BT_BNEP_PROTO_FILTER=y
CONFIG_BT_HIDP=y
CONFIG_MSM_BT_POWER=y
CONFIG_CFG80211=y
-CONFIG_NL80211_TESTMODE=y
CONFIG_CFG80211_INTERNAL_REGDB=y
CONFIG_RFKILL=y
# CONFIG_NFC_QNCI=y
@@ -270,9 +269,11 @@ CONFIG_PPPOPNS=y
CONFIG_PPP_ASYNC=y
CONFIG_PPP_SYNC_TTY=y
CONFIG_WCNSS_CORE=y
+CONFIG_CNSS_SDIO=y
CONFIG_WCNSS_CORE_PRONTO=y
CONFIG_WCNSS_MEM_PRE_ALLOC=y
CONFIG_WCNSS_REGISTER_DUMP_ON_BITE=y
+CONFIG_CLD_HL_SDIO_CORE=y
CONFIG_INPUT_EVDEV=y
CONFIG_INPUT_EVBUG=m
CONFIG_KEYBOARD_GPIO=y
@@ -288,8 +289,6 @@ CONFIG_TOUCHSCREEN_SYNAPTICS_I2C_RMI4=y
CONFIG_TOUCHSCREEN_SYNAPTICS_DSX_RMI4_DEV=y
CONFIG_TOUCHSCREEN_SYNAPTICS_DSX_FW_UPDATE=y
CONFIG_SECURE_TOUCH=y
-CONFIG_TOUCHSCREEN_BU21150=y
-CONFIG_INPUT_MT_WRAPPER=y
CONFIG_INPUT_MISC=y
CONFIG_INPUT_HBTP_INPUT=y
CONFIG_SENSORS_MPU6050=y
@@ -305,6 +304,7 @@ CONFIG_SENSORS_ISL29044A=y
CONFIG_SENSORS_CAPELLA_CM36283=y
# CONFIG_SERIO_I8042 is not set
# CONFIG_VT is not set
+CONFIG_SERIAL_MSM_HS=y
CONFIG_SERIAL_MSM_SMD=y
CONFIG_DIAG_CHAR=y
CONFIG_HW_RANDOM=y
@@ -611,3 +611,4 @@ CONFIG_SPDM_SCM=y
CONFIG_SECCOMP=y
CONFIG_BUILD_ARM64_APPENDED_DTB_IMAGE=y
CONFIG_UID_CPUTIME=y
+CONFIG_WLAN_FEATURE_RX_WAKELOCK=y
CONFIG_WLAN_FEATURE_RX_WAKELOCK=y
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
that'll get you an idea:
kernel-side:
bluetooth might be a problem, we need sdcardfs, our SoC/processor might lack certain parts that are necessary for functions of the ROM (DCC "MSM data capture and compare engine" and others),
binder needs updating,
display driver (?),
matching gpu driver (kernel-side) & adreno blobs (ROM-side)
we might need different kernel modules built for the ROM & subsystems might require rework (see attached list of kernel modules)
ROM-side:
modem needs to be replaced (M-ROM 2.4.8 by nreuge has those files in system/etc/customization/modem ),
ril / qcril might need work
wlan (system/firmware/wlan/bcmdhd) firmware might need to be replaced with ours
system/etc/wifi/wifi_txpower.conf might need modification
system/compatibility_matrix.xml might need changes
where is system/etc/mixer_paths.xml ? => system/vendor/etc/
system/vendor/lib{64}/{egl} adreno related libs need to be checked out - the driver most probably won't work with kernel-side
fingerprint & nfc libraries need to be evaluated [later]
msm_irqbalance, thermal, etc. all crucial subsystems and configurations need to be double and triple-checked before even attempting to put it on the device.
[I got a terrifying moment today while modifying MHL driver and got strange noises out of the phone & speaker - better safe than sorry]
That's only a first (and most likely incomplete) pass through the ROM files

So @zacharias.maladroit I am guessing their is a lot of work to be done well just asking how long will this take is it possible you are able to do all these modification yourself or do you need help from other devs? If you are able how long will It take I can also help out but not today or tomorrow busy with exams lol

Quantumkk123 said:
So @zacharias.maladroit I am guessing their is a lot of work to be done well just asking how long will this take is it possible you are able to do all these modification yourself or do you need help from other devs? If you are able how long will It take I can also help out but not today or tomorrow busy with exams lol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No ETA, I'll defer work since I need to focus on personal affairs right now, I can do some random kernel development (or rather: have to since this gives me my occasional "fix") but that's about it ... at least for now
I've pointed out the important points that need work but won't be able to do anything right now since other things need my full attention at the moment
edit:
to answer you question:
yes, help definitely would be appreciated and is required,
I won't do this on my own - since the M-ROM 2.4.8 variant for now is enough that I ask for, I'm mostly focusing on kernel work to get an optimum of performance, stability, security vs. battery runtime,
perhaps @GreyLeshy and additional folks/devs/users like @trax7 have interest in taking a look at this ...

OK welll thanks for all your help we all really appreciate it @zacharias.maladroit hopefully other devs can fix what needs improving as you have thankfully told us and they can fix it and maybe when you have more times on your hands you can fix everything

Great so to all devs out there who own Z5 of course please contribute and help make the first oreo Rom I will make.sure you get pointed out credits if you help Bro @enesstastim and others as well

Quantumkk123 said:
Great so to all devs out there who own Z5 of course please contribute and help make the first oreo Rom I will make.sure you get pointed out credits if you help Bro @enesstastim and others as well
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We also need to document each and every step and what modifications are necessary so that others can easily reproduce
First and foremost:
what ROM base did you use ?
(MaChao_44) Xperia XP V1.1.5(Android O).zip ¹
or
(MaChao_44) Xperia XP V1.4(Android O).zip ²
?
(I'm guessing the first one but not sure)
https://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=76476528&postcount=25 ¹, ²
thanks to @turnout96 for helping out with the download & upload

Version 1.4 @zacharias.maladroit

Quantumkk123 said:
Version 1.4 @zacharias.maladroit
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh good, cause I accidentally compared your mod with that ROM
Only was wondering because a few files were differing that weren't obvious

@zacharias.maladroit oh lol so the changes won't be as different as you thought?

Quantumkk123 said:
@zacharias.maladroit oh lol so the changes won't be as different as you thought?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They are just like I wrote before - but just with a few additional files less to worry about
still pretty difficult - this needs quite a few experienced devs to do it (or quite some learning by doing ...)

Would it be possible to use some of the drivers (gpu for example) from roms of other devices?
The OnePlus 2 has the same Snapdragon 810 SoC and there are some Oreo roms available already.
Maybe merging parts of the X and OP2 rom could help?
I dont have any experience modifiying aosp, so if Im worng, just ignore my thoughts.

brothers anyone screenshot this rom thanxxxxxxxx

[Request][Discussion]MIUI 10 Treble

Hi. As the title says i'm requesting for MIUI 10 Treble. Thanks!
*Please move if wrong forum*

no possible create GSI Miui 10 ??

I'm working on MIUI 9 one atm but it's based on 6x which isn't MIUI 10 yet. Maybe I will change to one of the other ones, if they're Treble. But only when xiaomi.eu builds come out.
I can't even get the device past init yet, because I have a seamless device perhaps and it just kicks me into fastboot (we encountered the same issue when porting Treble to the Mi A1). Not sure what the problem is.
I also have an annoying issue on my Ubuntu machine where I can't umount the system image because it's apparently busy, which could be causing issues.

CosmicDan said:
I'm working on MIUI 9 one atm but it's based on 6x which isn't MIUI 10 yet. Maybe I will change to one of the other ones, if they're Treble. But only when xiaomi.eu builds come out.
I can't even get the device past init yet, because I have a seamless device perhaps and it just kicks me into fastboot (we encountered the same issue when porting Treble to the Mi A1). Not sure what the problem is.
I also have an annoying issue on my Ubuntu machine where I can't umount the system image because it's apparently busy, which could be causing issues.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
what miui9 your working??

Yes,we need some different ui like miui,flyme to taste something else other than aosp

CosmicDan said:
I'm working on MIUI 9 one atm but it's based on 6x which isn't MIUI 10 yet. Maybe I will change to one of the other ones, if they're Treble. But only when xiaomi.eu builds come out.
I can't even get the device past init yet, because I have a seamless device perhaps and it just kicks me into fastboot (we encountered the same issue when porting Treble to the Mi A1). Not sure what the problem is.
I also have an annoying issue on my Ubuntu machine where I can't umount the system image because it's apparently busy, which could be causing issues.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are you sure it's possible? Someone said DSSI can't be modified into a GSI.

fxsheep said:
Are you sure it's possible? Someone said DSSI can't be modified into a GSI.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why not? Source please?

CosmicDan said:
Why not? Source please?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I may have said something to the effect of it being difficult to do because of greater integration between system and vendor, since the DSSI can expect private vendor implementations to be available in /vendor that a GSI can't.
I do recall saying it was a bad idea to flash a DSSI on something other than the device it was made for (except maybe very similar devices), but I'd imagine that should be obvious.

irony_delerium said:
I may have said something to the effect of it being difficult to do because of greater integration between system and vendor, since the DSSI can expect private vendor implementations to be available in /vendor that a GSI can't.
I do recall saying it was a bad idea to flash a DSSI on something other than the device it was made for (except maybe very similar devices), but I'd imagine that should be obvious.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Fair enough.
Well I am hoping it's possible. Basically all I've tried so far is whacking the /system folder into a GSI, but I have a seamless device and it's not even getting past init so I can't see logcat. I'm not sure why. I've been diff'ing MIUI /system with GSI /system and nothing really stands out.

CosmicDan said:
Fair enough.
Well I am hoping it's possible. Basically all I've tried so far is whacking the /system folder into a GSI, but I have a seamless device and it's not even getting past init so I can't see logcat. I'm not sure why. I've been diff'ing MIUI /system with GSI /system and nothing really stands out.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
On one hand, I've got 2 (technically 3, if you count my HiKey960 dev board) A-only devices. On the other, Xiaomi devices tend to run MTK or Qualcomm chipsets if I'm not mistaken, which none of mine have - both Mate 9's. (And the dev board, I have yet to get a working Treble implementation on it, and it would likely be API 27/P since it's only supported by AOSP master right now.)
Otherwise, I'd offer assistance - if I were going to do it, I'd start with hardware that's similar to what the DSSI expects, get it running there, and then start moving to dissimilar hardware.
I would imagine it _should_ be possible - someone managed to get somewhere with the Pixel P preview images, as I recall. I think I read that it was booting but still broken all over the place.

irony_delerium said:
On one hand, I've got 2 (technically 3, if you count my HiKey960 dev board) A-only devices. On the other, Xiaomi devices tend to run MTK or Qualcomm chipsets if I'm not mistaken, which none of mine have - both Mate 9's. (And the dev board, I have yet to get a working Treble implementation on it, and it would likely be API 27/P since it's only supported by AOSP master right now.)
Otherwise, I'd offer assistance - if I were going to do it, I'd start with hardware that's similar to what the DSSI expects, get it running there, and then start moving to dissimilar hardware.
I would imagine it _should_ be possible - someone managed to get somewhere with the Pixel P preview images, as I recall. I think I read that it was booting but still broken all over the place.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Fair idea. The Redmi S2 has same SoC as my A1 and is Treble, but there's no xiaomi.eu builds for it yet (and I need theirs because they remove some of the original device protections). So I'm working with 6x atm, next closest hardware.

CosmicDan said:
Why not? Source please?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is from a P DSSI port
erfanoabdi said:
if you understand what is CLT it's nothing but a copy paste script
and we don't have GSI P at all
i used marlin system and vendor images to make this rom from lineage with many patches, hex edits and hacks
i'll make a guide for all i did on griffin later
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
---------- Post added at 01:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:09 PM ----------
CosmicDan said:
I'm working on MIUI 9 one atm but it's based on 6x which isn't MIUI 10 yet. Maybe I will change to one of the other ones, if they're Treble. But only when xiaomi.eu builds come out.
I can't even get the device past init yet, because I have a seamless device perhaps and it just kicks me into fastboot (we encountered the same issue when porting Treble to the Mi A1). Not sure what the problem is.
I also have an annoying issue on my Ubuntu machine where I can't umount the system image because it's apparently busy, which could be causing issues.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
irony_delerium said:
On one hand, I've got 2 (technically 3, if you count my HiKey960 dev board) A-only devices. On the other, Xiaomi devices tend to run MTK or Qualcomm chipsets if I'm not mistaken, which none of mine have - both Mate 9's. (And the dev board, I have yet to get a working Treble implementation on it, and it would likely be API 27/P since it's only supported by AOSP master right now.)
Otherwise, I'd offer assistance - if I were going to do it, I'd start with hardware that's similar to what the DSSI expects, get it running there, and then start moving to dissimilar hardware.
I would imagine it _should_ be possible - someone managed to get somewhere with the Pixel P preview images, as I recall. I think I read that it was booting but still broken all over the place.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
P preview can be possible, the two phones have the same processor,so itis just like a ported ROM that don't related to treble.
I just *guess* that the DSSI is similar to a Non-Treble phone's ROM. I flashed a bootable AOSP GSI on a trebled phone and it boots fine,but since I just replace the /system/bin with one in MIUI DSSI, the phone will directly drop to fastboot mode.
So the DSSI maybe just like all the nougat roms,that they use the vendor directly,don't go through treble.
If GSI-ify a DSSI image is possible, then I have some ideas.
Before trying to make a MIUI GSI,we could first get a DSSI Lineage ROM,e.g. Xiaomi MI 6 Lineage OS 15.1 treble. This is a device with unofficial treble,and the lineage rom uses a DSSI image .This situation is just like the Redmi S2 or whyred, but this DSSI image contains the least private vendor stuff.It's nearly a GSI image.
So if we first get it boot on a phone with different processor,then we could prove that crossing processors is possible.Then we may use a similar way to make MIUI DSSI go past fastboot.

fxsheep said:
This is from a P DSSI port
---------- Post added at 01:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:09 PM ----------
P preview can be possible, the two phones have the same processor,so itis just like a ported ROM that don't related to treble.
I just *guess* that the DSSI is similar to a Non-Treble phone's ROM. I flashed a bootable AOSP GSI on a trebled phone and it boots fine,but since I just replace the /system/bin with one in MIUI DSSI, the phone will directly drop to fastboot mode.
So the DSSI maybe just like all the nougat roms,that they use the vendor directly,don't go through treble.
If GSI-ify a DSSI image is possible, then I have some ideas.
Before trying to make a MIUI GSI,we could first get a DSSI Lineage ROM,e.g. Xiaomi MI 6 Lineage OS 15.1 treble. This is a device with unofficial treble,and the lineage rom uses a DSSI image .This situation is just like the Redmi S2 or whyred, but this DSSI image contains the least private vendor stuff.It's nearly a GSI image.
So if we first get it boot on a phone with different processor,then we could prove that crossing processors is possible.Then we may use a similar way to make MIUI DSSI go past fastboot.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
GSI is something Phh created. It's basically the same as other Treble ROM's - it talks to vendor through VNDK. He uses a dummy device tree though to ensure that there are no broken contracts outside of the Treble architecture pattern.
It is likely that DSSI's use stuff on their own system or vendor that are outside of the VNDK interface, though - that's true. But those are specific to the ROM overlay, not the core Android experience.
Indeed, the goal in porting a DSSI is to identify these things.
We (I) already have a device with unofficial Treble, BTW - I and another guy developed it ourselves. So Mi 6 Treble (a device I don't even have) won't help.
When we compile RR for our device under Treble, the Vendor is 100% GSI compatible as a result. The RR ROM itself needed no changes - we basically just added some build flags and moved some blobs to vendor from system. This was needed to even get *our* Treble ROM booting, though. The GSI's just happened to work automatically after that (minus some issues like camera blobs having hardcoded paths to /system).
In other words, we effectively compiled a DSSI with GSI-compatible Vendor with only VNDK-related build flags (and some vendor-located scripts to inject hardware blobs onto system).
Reversing that process is the key to port a DSSI to GSI.
I have diff'ed our classic non-Treble RR with Treble RR build, but I didn't find any leads. It's something specific to MIUI.
Maybe instead of replacing the whole system, I'll just replace the GSI framework and app packages with MIUI ones and see what happens. At least then it should get past init. There will of course be missing services in initfs that MIUI depends on, at the least. But hopefully no kind of DRM-like protections that block it from init.
I've a hunch that MIUI vendor has things that aren't actually from the vendor but for MIUI, which would be technically incorrect but a simple and effective way to prevent direct kanging.
With all that said, I do have a source of anxiety here - I need to be able to record and then script all this porting process so the GSI-ported ROM can actually be updated as the base DSSI gets new builds. That's going to be a headache. I don't want to be spending the rest of my days updating and editing a build script for MIUI GSI :\

Alright, small progress update (in the spirit of openness).
Turns out my boot issues were because I needed to recreate the ext4 image with file_contexts, which I had to stick together from GSI and my vendor partition with a bit of extras.
If I replace the whole system/ with MIUI system, I just get a kick into fastboot with no console-ramoops so the sledgehammer approach is out.
Instead I've replaced app, priv-app and framework with MIUI versions so I can at least get to the zygote bring up stage and go from there.
Ofc it doesn't boot, I will need to modify my rootfs at least and probably add some MIUI specific init rc's and services and the like. Thankfully I have an AB device so I don't need to modify my boot.img at all for this.
Stay tuned.

CosmicDan said:
Alright, small progress update (in the spirit of openness).
Turns out my boot issues were because I needed to recreate the ext4 image with file_contexts, which I had to stick together from GSI and my vendor partition with a bit of extras.
If I replace the whole system/ with MIUI system, I just get a kick into fastboot with no console-ramoops so the sledgehammer approach is out.
Instead I've replaced app, priv-app and framework with MIUI versions so I can at least get to the zygote bring up stage and go from there.
Ofc it doesn't boot, I will need to modify my rootfs at least and probably add some MIUI specific init rc's and services and the like. Thankfully I have an AB device so I don't need to modify my boot.img at all for this.
Stay tuned.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Little noob doubt;... devs ported miui10 for oneplus5 and 5T . Then why can't we! And yea oneplus 5 is not A/B . But that we can discuss or try to rectify our A/B partition problem,then it should be slightly easy to port know. _just my little thoughts and yea im really confused

balavignesh s said:
Little noob doubt;... devs ported miui10 for oneplus5 and 5T . Then why can't we! And yea oneplus 5 is not A/B . But that we can discuss or try to rectify our A/B partition problem,then it should be slightly easy to port know. _just my little thoughts and yea im really confused
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Porting to AB makes things easier actually. I don't need to repack boot.img.
But that's beside the point. I can port a normal MIUI easily, in fact I have got it working basically on Mi A1 with minor issues (no I will not release it). But I want to port it on a Treble GSI base so it's more universal and easier to maintain - that's the challenge.
EDIT: Another update. I'm now up to the stage of resolving lib mismatches (i.e. native methods that MIUI adds). This is the hard part.

CosmicDan said:
Porting to AB makes things easier actually. I don't need to repack boot.img.
But that's beside the point. I can port a normal MIUI easily, in fact I have got it working basically on Mi A1 with minor issues (no I will not release it). But I want to port it on a Treble GSI base so it's more universal and easier to maintain - that's the challenge.
EDIT: Another update. I'm now up to the stage of resolving lib mismatches (i.e. native methods that MIUI adds). This is the hard part.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have seen that some huawei devices with sd625 are running emui. Is it possible to port it to our device? I had huawei phone before and it seems to be a bit more complicated than miui.
Btw. Good luck with miui port, you are great Dev
Wysłane z mojego Mi A1 przy użyciu Tapatalka

Mirdeusz said:
I have seen that some huawei devices with sd625 are running emui. Is it possible to port it to our device? I had huawei phone before and it seems to be a bit more complicated than miui.
Btw. Good luck with miui port, you are great Dev
Wysłane z mojego Mi A1 przy użyciu Tapatalka
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Of course it's possible. Just a matter of someone skilled and interested enough to do it.
Off topic, though. I'm not doing EMUI. I might do Flyme because I've never used it, but probably not because I am not experienced with it (I have been porting MIUI since 2012).
Once I get MIUI up it will include build scripts though, so maybe it can help someone else work on porting other ROMs.
Another small update: In order to maintain as much GSI compatibility as possible, some hardware-related MIUI features will very likely be broken. I had to strip their custom camera stuff out already, for example - so that means using your own device's or AOSP compatible camera.

OK, here's a technical rundown of where I'm at now (which is also a bit of a blocker).
Trying to get the extra MIUI resources (framework and platform APK's) seems to be impossible without replacing a large chunk of libs. That's a bummer. But I'll post the info here for posterity reasons, if not to catch the attention of someone clever and interested enough to know more.
First of all, we need to inject the new framework/platform APK's to the zygote whitelist. I do this by hooking the start of ZygoteInit.smali#preloadClasses()V:
Code:
# CosmicDan - inject miui platform APK's to whitelist
const-string/jumbo v0, "/system/app/miui/miui.apk"
invoke-static {v0}, Lcom/android/internal/os/Zygote;->nativeAllowFileAcrossFork(Ljava/lang/String;)V
const-string/jumbo v0, "/system/app/miuisystem/miuisystem.apk"
invoke-static {v0}, Lcom/android/internal/os/Zygote;->nativeAllowFileAcrossFork(Ljava/lang/String;)V
const-string/jumbo v0, "/system/framework/framework-ext-res/framework-ext-res.apk"
invoke-static {v0}, Lcom/android/internal/os/Zygote;->nativeAllowFileAcrossFork(Ljava/lang/String;)V
...this worked. Well, at least it got rid of the "not whitelisted:" errors on logcat. Still, even with this here, I get errors like this in logcat:
Code:
06-09 02:40:10.374 599 599 I Zygote : Preloading resources...
06-09 02:40:10.446 599 599 I Zygote : ...preloaded 86 resources in 71ms.
06-09 02:40:10.448 599 599 W ReflectionUtils:
06-09 02:40:10.448 599 599 W ReflectionUtils: java.lang.reflect.InvocationTargetException
06-09 02:40:10.448 599 599 W ReflectionUtils: at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Native Method)
06-09 02:40:10.448 599 599 W ReflectionUtils: at miui.util.ReflectionUtils.callStaticMethod(Unknown Source:5)
06-09 02:40:10.448 599 599 W ReflectionUtils: at miui.util.ReflectionUtils.tryCallStaticMethod(Unknown Source:3)
06-09 02:40:10.448 599 599 W ReflectionUtils: at com.android.internal.os.ZygoteInitInjector.preloadMiuiResources(Unknown Source:44)
06-09 02:40:10.448 599 599 W ReflectionUtils: at com.android.internal.os.ZygoteInit.preloadResources(Unknown Source:95)
06-09 02:40:10.448 599 599 W ReflectionUtils: at com.android.internal.os.ZygoteInit.preload(Unknown Source:41)
06-09 02:40:10.448 599 599 W ReflectionUtils: at com.android.internal.os.ZygoteInit.main(Unknown Source:252)
06-09 02:40:10.448 599 599 W ReflectionUtils: Caused by: android.content.res.Resources$NotFoundException: Drawable miui:drawable/action_bar_back_normal_dark with resource ID #0x10020080
06-09 02:40:10.448 599 599 W ReflectionUtils: Caused by: android.content.res.Resources$NotFoundException: File res/drawable-xxhdpi-v4/action_bar_back_normal_dark.png from drawable resource ID #0x10020080
06-09 02:40:10.448 599 599 W ReflectionUtils: at android.content.res.ResourcesImpl.loadDrawableForCookie(Unknown Source:177)
06-09 02:40:10.448 599 599 W ReflectionUtils: at android.content.res.ResourcesImpl.loadDrawable(Unknown Source:338)
06-09 02:40:10.448 599 599 W ReflectionUtils: at android.content.res.MiuiResourcesImpl.loadDrawable(Unknown Source:25)
06-09 02:40:10.448 599 599 W ReflectionUtils: at android.content.res.Resources.getDrawableForDensity(Unknown Source:14)
06-09 02:40:10.448 599 599 W ReflectionUtils: at android.content.res.Resources.getDrawable(Unknown Source:1)
06-09 02:40:10.448 599 599 W ReflectionUtils: at com.android.internal.os.ZygoteInit.preloadDrawables(Unknown Source:17)
06-09 02:40:10.448 599 599 W ReflectionUtils: at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Native Method)
06-09 02:40:10.448 599 599 W ReflectionUtils: at miui.util.ReflectionUtils.callStaticMethod(Unknown Source:5)
06-09 02:40:10.448 599 599 W ReflectionUtils: at miui.util.ReflectionUtils.tryCallStaticMethod(Unknown Source:3)
06-09 02:40:10.448 599 599 W ReflectionUtils: at com.android.internal.os.ZygoteInitInjector.preloadMiuiResources(Unknown Source:44)
06-09 02:40:10.448 599 599 W ReflectionUtils: at com.android.internal.os.ZygoteInit.preloadResources(Unknown Source:95)
06-09 02:40:10.448 599 599 W ReflectionUtils: at com.android.internal.os.ZygoteInit.preload(Unknown Source:41)
06-09 02:40:10.448 599 599 W ReflectionUtils: at com.android.internal.os.ZygoteInit.main(Unknown Source:252)
06-09 02:40:10.448 599 599 W ReflectionUtils: Caused by: java.io.FileNotFoundException: res/drawable-xxhdpi-v4/action_bar_back_normal_dark.png
06-09 02:40:10.448 599 599 W ReflectionUtils: at android.content.res.AssetManager.openNonAssetNative(Native Method)
06-09 02:40:10.448 599 599 W ReflectionUtils: at android.content.res.AssetManager.openNonAsset(Unknown Source:17)
06-09 02:40:10.448 599 599 W ReflectionUtils: at android.content.res.ResourcesImpl.loadDrawableForCookie(Unknown Source:429)
06-09 02:40:10.448 599 599 W ReflectionUtils: ... 12 more
06-09 02:40:10.448 599 599 I ZygoteInitInjector: ...preloaded 0 miui sdk resources in 2ms.
...that resource exists in miuisystem.apk (IIRC, might be miui.apk), which is whitelisted now and indeed on the classpath (I see it in all the dex2oat related calls elsewhere). But for some reason it still can't seem to find it - it's resources aren't "included" for some reason.
Back in the day we had to add framework apk's to framework smali (AssetManager or some such class) when porting to get resources included, but we're already using 100% MIUI framework anyway so that should already be done.....
Now this is only a preload error - system should still boot after that. But what's worse is this error later on:
Code:
06-09 02:40:21.360 1632 1632 W ResourceType: DynamicRefTable(0x10): No mapping for build-time package ID 0x10.
06-09 02:40:21.361 1632 1632 W ResourceType: e[0x01] -> 0x01
06-09 02:40:21.361 1632 1632 W ResourceType: e[0x7f] -> 0x7f
06-09 02:40:21.361 1632 1632 E ResourceType: Failed resolving bag parent id 0x100d0100
06-09 02:40:21.373 1632 1684 D SystemServerInitThreadPool: Finished executing ReadingSystemConfig
06-09 02:40:21.377 1632 1632 I libthemeutils: Theme´╝Ü libthemeutil.so load success
06-09 02:40:21.383 1632 1632 E System : ******************************************
06-09 02:40:21.383 1632 1632 E System : ************ Failure starting system services
06-09 02:40:21.383 1632 1632 E System : java.lang.RuntimeException: Failed to create service com.android.server.am.ActivityManagerService$Lifecycle: service constructor threw an exception
06-09 02:40:21.383 1632 1632 E System : at com.android.server.SystemServiceManager.startService(Unknown Source:178)
06-09 02:40:21.383 1632 1632 E System : at com.android.server.SystemServer.startBootstrapServices(Unknown Source:81)
06-09 02:40:21.383 1632 1632 E System : at com.android.server.SystemServer.run(Unknown Source:266)
06-09 02:40:21.383 1632 1632 E System : at com.android.server.SystemServer.main(Unknown Source:10)
06-09 02:40:21.383 1632 1632 E System : at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Native Method)
06-09 02:40:21.383 1632 1632 E System : at com.android.internal.os.RuntimeInit$MethodAndArgsCaller.run(Unknown Source:11)
06-09 02:40:21.383 1632 1632 E System : at com.android.internal.os.ZygoteInit.main(Unknown Source:306)
06-09 02:40:21.383 1632 1632 E System : Caused by: java.lang.reflect.InvocationTargetException
06-09 02:40:21.383 1632 1632 E System : at java.lang.reflect.Constructor.newInstance0(Native Method)
06-09 02:40:21.383 1632 1632 E System : at java.lang.reflect.Constructor.newInstance(Constructor.java:334)
06-09 02:40:21.383 1632 1632 E System : at com.android.server.SystemServiceManager.startService(Unknown Source:135)
06-09 02:40:21.383 1632 1632 E System : ... 6 more
06-09 02:40:21.383 1632 1632 E System : Caused by: android.content.res.Resources$NotFoundException: File res/xml/power_profile.xml from xml type xml resource ID #0x1170010
06-09 02:40:21.383 1632 1632 E System : at android.content.res.ResourcesImpl.loadXmlResourceParser(Unknown Source:190)
06-09 02:40:21.383 1632 1632 E System : at android.content.res.Resources.loadXmlResourceParser(Unknown Source:23)
06-09 02:40:21.383 1632 1632 E System : at android.content.res.Resources.getXml(Unknown Source:3)
06-09 02:40:21.383 1632 1632 E System : at com.android.internal.os.PowerProfile.readPowerValuesFromXml(Unknown Source:9)
06-09 02:40:21.383 1632 1632 E System : at com.android.internal.os.PowerProfile.<init>(Unknown Source:14)
06-09 02:40:21.383 1632 1632 E System : at com.android.server.am.BatteryStatsService.<init>(Unknown Source:104)
06-09 02:40:21.383 1632 1632 E System : at com.android.server.am.ActivityManagerService.<init>(Unknown Source:900)
06-09 02:40:21.383 1632 1632 E System : at com.android.server.am.ActivityManagerService$Lifecycle.<init>(Unknown Source:5)
06-09 02:40:21.383 1632 1632 E System : ... 9 more
06-09 02:40:21.383 1632 1632 E System : Caused by: java.io.FileNotFoundException: res/xml/power_profile.xml
06-09 02:40:21.383 1632 1632 E System : at android.content.res.AssetManager.openXmlAssetNative(Native Method)
06-09 02:40:21.383 1632 1632 E System : at android.content.res.AssetManager.openXmlBlockAsset(Unknown Source:17)
06-09 02:40:21.383 1632 1632 E System : at android.content.res.ResourcesImpl.loadXmlResourceParser(Unknown Source:48)
06-09 02:40:21.383 1632 1632 E System : ... 16 more
That's a resource that exists in the base framework-res.apk - but it's not being loaded for some reason.
I think the ResourceType errors just before it are a clue. The 0x10 might be a special ResourceType that MIUI adds. But ResourceTypes.cpp is part of androidfw (libandroidfw.so) - so it looks like it will need to be replaced.
This means that a true GSI MIUI may be impossible libandroidfw.so will definitely be linked against many other objects that MIUI has modified, and who knows how many of them are hardware-dependent.
I will make that attempt in replacing the required libs after libandroidfw.so (a tedious process of elimination) to at least see if it solves the resources problem. But if anybody knowledgeable enough comes a cross this and can help, please do.

CosmicDan said:
Of course it's possible. Just a matter of someone skilled and interested enough to do it.
Off topic, though. I'm not doing EMUI. I might do Flyme because I've never used it, but probably not because I am not experienced with it (I have been porting MIUI since 2012).
Once I get MIUI up it will include build scripts though, so maybe it can help someone else work on porting other ROMs.
Another small update: In order to maintain as much GSI compatibility as possible, some hardware-related MIUI features will very likely be broken. I had to strip their custom camera stuff out already, for example - so that means using your own device's or AOSP compatible camera.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well we don't need to worry about flyme coz it has a patchrom project and it's still in maintenance.And since flyme updated to oreo ,we can patch an aosp gsi into flyme gsi.