R2's rom is great but I think I speak for many users that are frustrated with the lack of updates with OMGB. Maybe it would be possible for someone to get R2's rom and update it with some CM7 fixes and other things. Is this to daunting of a task or why hasn't someone else taken up this Rom???
What's wrong w/ CM7 itself? I don't think there's anything major left not working on the recent (>= 28) builds.
He's done with omgb he's gonna make omfgb next. It works well enough for most people. There isn't really much that can be improved.
Sent from my Incredible using XDA App
Cm7 is the bombass. Why would you want anything else?
Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk
What's not working on OMGB? Camcorder at 720p?
bradatz said:
R2's rom is great but I think I speak for many users that are frustrated with the lack of updates with OMGB. Maybe it would be possible for someone to get R2's rom and update it with some CM7 fixes and other things. Is this to daunting of a task or why hasn't someone else taken up this Rom???
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i am beyond confused. have you even tried CM7 before posting your request???? Everything there works now and its stock (no theming) with a few enhancements (because thankfully slayher, cyanogen and team are very smart). This is probably beyond insulting to all the devs working extremely hard on developing GB for our incs. If you believe it is easy for devs to whip out roms, please either contribute to the process or contribute donations.
I hate to be traffic police (because most people who do so are pompous numnuts IMHO) but this thread does not belong in dev section by any stretch of the imagination. Its just a request, nothing more.
compare cm7 vs. OMGB
There are so many fixes on there that aren't applied to OMGB.
I don't like cm7 because it feels like a could use a vanilla 2.2 rom add a custom launcher and it would be pretty similar. Just not a fan of customizations.
bradatz said:
compare cm7 vs. OMGB
There are so many fixes on there that aren't applied to OMGB.
I don't like cm7 because it feels like a could use a vanilla 2.2 rom add a custom launcher and it would be pretty similar. Just not a fan of customizations.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
brad, please test out the functionality and speed of CM7. GB does add significant things. I am a tinkerer so I know why I cant go back to 2.2 anymore. There are enough functionality enhancements. And I dont understand, what customizations??? I have flashed 11 CM7 builds - trust me until you are a crackflasher, you will never delve deep enough to really use the power of GB.
I understand where the OP is coming from. My guess is you would have to wait for OMGB to develop and catch up with CM7 in terms of bug fixing.
I too wanted a "stock" GB rom.. but CM7 brought it close for me after I installed stock gingerbread launcher that someone ripped and posted on the market.
What kind of "bugs" are you referring to?
Hi all.
Not sure whether this was the right place to post, but coming from a development perspective, I thought it was fitting. If not, mods - please feel free to move.
This thread is here to bring the currently worked on 3.0 kernel for the Desire to the HD2 developers' attention. There is minimal difference in the Desire hardware when compared to the HD2, and therefore would probably not be a difficult port to perform.
The main benefit of porting this kernel over to the HD2 is the improvement in ICS, namely through Hardware Acceleration. Although it hasn't been confirmed yet, the OP over in the Desire thread seems to think Hardware Acceleration is working.
I'm reaching out to all the HD2 developers to collaborate their efforts in an attempt to port this over to HD2 - it will bring us an even more well-rounded ICS build, extending the already expanded boundaries of our beloved HD2's.
The link to the original thread is here.
The link to the github source code is here.
All credits go to Chaosz-X for the current work on the kernel. I am simply acting as a messenger.
I wish you guys luck, and hopefully it won't take long to get some work going on this!
MrP.
It is not as easy as you might think. Altough the hardware is the same the radio is completely different because it is from windows mobile. Wich makes most of the work on the ics kernel useless. No and radio's can not be changed easily because they are closed source.
then how did the desire 2.6.35 kernel get ported ?
I thought hardware acceleration was already working in ICS.
jan-willem3 said:
It is not as easy as you might think. Altough the hardware is the same the radio is completely different because it is from windows mobile. Wich makes most of the work on the ics kernel useless. No and radio's can not be changed easily because they are closed source.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Forgive me for my lack of extensive knowledge in the kernel department, but, considering that quite a few of the currently developed kernels for the HD2 are based on the Desire sources, I would've assumed that what was done before in porting the 2.6.35 kernel, could be adapted to work with this kernel.
Once again, not saying that's right, because I'm basing that conclusion off logical thought, not experience.
Visentinel said:
then how did the desire 2.6.35 kernel get ported ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My point above exactly. If it's been done before, surely the steps needed to adapt the 3.0 kernel are not far out of reach. The people I think we should be talking to are marc1706, and tytung. I'll pop them a PM when I have a moment.
KyJelly69 said:
I thought hardware acceleration was already working in ICS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's not true Hardware Acceleration - its a hack of sorts. It gives a boost in performance no doubt, but most likely no where near true Hardware Acceleration.
Thanks for the input guys.
MrP.
It might be possible to port the 3.0 kernel to the HD2 but the thread you linked is currently providing a 2.6.35.14 kernel. They are planning on releasing a 3.0 kernel.
In order to get a 100% supported hardware acceleration we will need a 3.0 kernel, since ICS was build for the 3.0 kernel. It's pretty much the same with the glitches in sense 2.1 and 3.x ROMs we had prior to using the desire .35 kernel.
marc1706 said:
It might be possible to port the 3.0 kernel to the HD2 but the thread you linked is currently providing a 2.6.35.14 kernel. They are planning on releasing a 3.0 kernel.
In order to get a 100% supported hardware acceleration we will need a 3.0 kernel, since ICS was build for the 3.0 kernel. It's pretty much the same with the glitches in sense 2.1 and 3.x ROMs we had prior to using the desire .35 kernel.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for your input marc1076.
I am aware that it's not 3.0 yet, however, he has backported quite a few things for now, mainly concerning hardware acceleration (as written in the OP).
Would it not be a good step to then try this kernel on our current ICS builds in the hopes of any improvement? Or perhaps alternatively incorporate the backports (possibly more difficult) into our current ICS kernel(s) in an attempt to edge closer to true Hardware Acceleration?
A few thoughts, may be possible, or not - feel free to correct me. Thanks again for the advice.
MrP.
MrPadie said:
Thanks for your input marc1076.
I am aware that it's not 3.0 yet, however, he has backported quite a few things for now, mainly concerning hardware acceleration (as written in the OP).
Would it not be a good step to then try this kernel on our current ICS builds in the hopes of any improvement? Or perhaps alternatively incorporate the backports (possibly more difficult) into our current ICS kernel(s) in an attempt to edge closer to true Hardware Acceleration?
A few thoughts, may be possible, or not - feel free to correct me. Thanks again for the advice.
MrP.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Once I see some true ics kernels with specific commits for ics you will see them appear in our kernels.
Sent from my HTC HD2 using XDA App
warrenb213 said:
Once I see some true ics kernels with specific commits for ics you will see them appear in our kernels.
Sent from my HTC HD2 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for your reply warrenb213.
However, I'm kinda lost as to what you are saying - are you saying that our current kernel (namely Tytung's kernel) for ICS is not a proper ICS kernel (which it isn't really, it's adapted from GB kernel from what I can tell), and until we have a kernel dedicated to ICS, there won't be any of the above mentioned additions?
If that's the case, what is your reasoning for saying that if I may ask? And also, where can these 'true' ICS kernels be sourced from? (As far as I know, the only 'true' ICS kernels around are based on 3.0, which in essence, defeats the object of us porting these additions back in the first place).
MrP.
MrPadie said:
Thanks for your reply warrenb213.
However, I'm kinda lost as to what you are saying - are you saying that our current kernel (namely Tytung's kernel) for ICS is not a proper ICS kernel (which it isn't really, it's adapted from GB kernel from what I can tell), and until we have a kernel dedicated to ICS, there won't be any of the above mentioned additions?
If that's the case, what is your reasoning for saying that if I may ask? And also, where can these 'true' ICS kernels be sourced from? (As far as I know, the only 'true' ICS kernels around are based on 3.0, which in essence, defeats the object of us porting these additions back in the first place).
MrP.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First of all, tytung's kernel which is based on hastarin's sd kernel is a base of .32 kernel from froyo source of the eVO 4g. It was not supposed to be used in gb but since it works, no worries.
Even though AOSP is opensource, the driver code for the devices is not, which makes porting difficult and moreso when the device actually never had any drivers for that specific os (read Android on HD2).
There is already an initiative (thread to be precise) in the qualcomm developer forums pleading them to opensource the qsd8250 drivers so that devs who are not so rich can backport ics to n1, desire (or HD2 for that matter) since it is clear that HTC certainly won't and google too has given up n1.
What tytung did to make his kernel work with ics is add upon the old base, it works but is dirty and should lead to unexpected issues.
The true ics kernels are based on the 3.0.1-tag of linus's repo.
You can sync into linus's 3.0.1 and compare it to the kernel source code of Galaxy Nexus, see the android changes, port them to the vanilla kernel, copy htcleo board files while rebasing them on 3.0.1 and adding the radio code from current kernels. It is far easy to say this than to actually do this when looking at the staggering size of the linux codebase.
The question is how many of the HD2-specific changes were broken by
a) changes in the upstream Linux codebase in between 2.6.32 and 2.6.40 (aka 3.0)?
b) android-specific changes between Froyo, GB and ICS
EDIT: There seems to be a working (except for USB mass storage) 2.6.35 kernel here. This at least reduces the number of upstream code changes to deal with.
Dr_Grip said:
EDIT: There seems to be a working (except for USB mass storage) 2.6.35 kernel here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
USB mass storage works, confirmed it once again. USB Tethering doesn't work. Still working on it.
Dr_Grip said:
The question is how many of the HD2-specific changes were broken by
a) changes in the upstream Linux codebase in between 2.6.32 and 2.6.40 (aka 3.0)?
b) android-specific changes between Froyo, GB and ICS
EDIT: There seems to be a working (except for USB mass storage) 2.6.35 kernel here. This at least reduces the number of upstream code changes to deal with.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And a fully working one here
Visentinel said:
then how did the desire 2.6.35 kernel get ported ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because it was an htc kernel just like the prevous evo 4g kernel so porting it was more easy. If you look at the 2.6.35 cm kernel it is highly unstable and the MSM kernel is also an AOSP kernel like the cm kernel.
jan-willem3 said:
Because it was an htc kernel just like the prevous evo 4g kernel so porting it was more easy. If you look at the 2.6.35 cm kernel it is highly unstable and the MSM kernel is also an AOSP kernel like the cm kernel.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That does not make sense, I think. If the Desire devs get a working kernel for the Desire, the changes needed to make it working on the HD2 should be the same no matter if they are starting from a HTC or an AOSP codebase.
That it will be more complicated to get a working 3.0 Desire kernel without HTC's codebase is a challenge the Desire devs will have to face unrelated of the porting effort to the HD2.
uzi2 said:
And a fully working one here
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Can you confirm that everything works?
My kernel is forked from ACA 2.6.35 non-sense and developed further...
fhasovic said:
Can you confirm that everything works?
My kernel is forked from ACA 2.6.35 non-sense and developed further...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are voice recorder issues in the current version, but these are fixed in the latest release 0103
Swyped from my aHD2oid
SPEAKING FOR THE NOOBS
I LOVE MY PHONE TO ME IT'S SUPER FAST,
BUT WHAT YOU GUYS ARE SAYING IS THAT IF WE HAD A NATIVE ANDROID WITH THE SAME SPECS AS OUR HD2 IT WOULD BE EVEN FASTER AND BETTER?
THIS IS MY FIRST SMART PHONE SO I'M JUST CURIOUS ABOUT THAT.
Sent from my HD2 using xda premium
turn your caps lock off.
Short answer: You can expect the same performance from the HD2 as from the Nexus One and Desire, given it runs the same software.
Slightly longer answer: This is a development thread. What we are talking about is getting the linux kernel (think: core of the system) version used by ICS running on our phone.
Getting this to work -as opposed to trying to get a Froyo/GB kernel working with ICS- would benefit both performance and stability.
There are some issues with that. Most of them are related to the fact that Google and HTC have dropped official support for the Nexus One and Desire. The only issue related to the HD2 not being an native Android phone is the need for a special radio driver.
EDIT: If you tried to be funny: You failed.
uzi2 said:
There are voice recorder issues in the current version, but these are fixed in the latest release 0103
Swyped from my aHD2oid
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Uzi is correct. Ill be doing a fs thing soon, a Bluetooth thing soon, and more cam related stuff. But overall 99% is fully working.
Sent from my HTC HD2 using XDA App
Quick question for those who understand more about the kernel than I do.
Why doesn't WiMax work on any of the new ICS builds. I thought the benefit of TeamWin writing the wimax implementation from scratch was we have the source and can tack it into anything. If the ASOP kernel has been released, what is keeping us from plugging in the WiMax bits and complining?
I understand that many of the driver sources are held by HTC and won't work until they release their ICS code. I just thought WiMax would be the first thing that would be implemented.
Thanks
It takes time, and since the code hasn't been released, they have to get it from scratch and test it out until it's nearly perfect. Just be patient.
I'm in no rush, this is just out of sheer coding curiosity.
I thought ICS code was released by Google and the WiMax code was written by the TeamWin guys? If both of these are available what else does it take to get it working?
My only guess would be that google releases a vanilla kernel. We need and Evo ICS kernel, and the source for that kernel has not been released? If that is true, what kernel are current ICS builds using? Anyway, I'd be interested to hear how this all works.
Thanks
amw2320 said:
I'm in no rush, this is just out of sheer coding curiosity.
I thought ICS code was released by Google and the WiMax code was written by the TeamWin guys? If both of these are available what else does it take to get it working?
My only guess would be that google releases a vanilla kernel. We need and Evo ICS kernel, and the source for that kernel has not been released? If that is true, what kernel are current ICS builds using? Anyway, I'd be interested to hear how this all works.
Thanks
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think ics builds are using tiamat 4.0.1 kernel
Interesting. I guess that would mean it is supported in the kernel, but the networking connections have yet to be written into the OS then. Thanks for the info.
Hey Everyone,
Recently I've been trying like heck to get any ICS/sense based ROM to boot with the current available kangarookernels (r19.1 and r21) and I've had no luck. I know there are other decent sense kernels out there but my primary interest is in fauxsound. I have a fascinate (galaxy s) here that I use for a music player and because of the voodoo hardware and kernel it blows basically any other phone I've come across out of the water in terms of headset output. Otherwise, do you guys know of any other AOSP/sense based kernels that incorporate fauxsound for our device. Thank you very much for reading and I look forward to any input that's out there.
baischillin said:
Hey Everyone,
Recently I've been trying like heck to get any ICS/sense based ROM to boot with the current available kangarookernels (r19.1 and r21) and I've had no luck. I know there are other decent sense kernels out there but my primary interest is in fauxsound. I have a fascinate (galaxy s) here that I use for a music player and because of the voodoo hardware and kernel it blows basically any other phone I've come across out of the water in terms of headset output. Otherwise, do you guys know of any other AOSP/sense based kernels that incorporate fauxsound for our device. Thank you very much for reading and I look forward to any input that's out there.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
-Should have mentioned that I'm S-OFF, currently running viperinc with havesense kernel. always follow the proper format for flashing and i'm havning no issues with the current combo. also i've used the antivenom script and it unfortunately did not help.
Build your own kernel?
It would allow you to have any configuration of options...
Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk
Thank you for the vote of confidence....but I'm not savvy enough with the programming language to build a kernel. I looked into adding kernel patches and tried getting a general feel for the Linux language....and I still don't know what a GIT is. I have a lot of respect for you folks out there who can make it happen but I'm not one of them.