Related
I’ve recently added some modifications to the Cyanogenmod kernel. They include overclocking up to 2ghz as well as lower idle voltages (undervolting) and a higher default maximum frequency. The maximum frequency is now 1516800hz by default. It can be changed up to 2016000hz. Frequencies higher than 1612800hz are unstable when using the ondemand governor on my phone, they seem to be stable when used with the performance governor or even the conservative one, so I think it might be related to the fast frequency switching. Near and at 2ghz the phone gets really hot in a matter of minutes so be careful, you can probably damage it using this kernel. Thus I take no responsibility for any damages resulting from using this kernel!
My frequency(in hz)/voltage(in mV)-table is the following:
245760 750
368640 800
768000 900
806400 925
1113600 1000
1209600 1050
1305600 1100
1401600 1150
1497600 1225
1516800 1225
1612800 1300
1708800 1450
1804800 1500
1920000 1500
2016000 1500
PS:
I just was able to lower the voltages a bit, I've attached the new kernel. I am running my phone at 1.92ghz and it seems to be pretty stable so far. I have to use it with the conservative governor, the ondemand and interactive ones make it lock up. Using the conservative one it clocks up and down on demand as well, though slower.
245760 750
368640 800
768000 900
806400 925
1113600 1000
1209600 1050
1305600 1100
1401600 1150
1516800 1200
1612800 1250
1708800 1300
1804800 1400
1920000 1450
2016000 1500
PPS:
I made a third version containing a crude hack to fix the problem with the governors. Now my phone runs at min 245mhz and max 1920mhz using the ondemand governor. So far everything is peachy
ILWT kernel is like a mirror of this.. :/
It doesn't allow frequencies that high, does it? I didn't actually try it, but the description only mentions lower frequencies.
Dekar said:
It doesn't allow frequencies that high, does it? I didn't actually try it, but the description only mentions lower frequencies.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Obviously that guy is a troll....IWLT does not offer frequencies up to 2ghz.
Anyway, us folks in the g2 section appreciate each and every kernel we get as they are RARE. Don't mind the trolls.
G1ForFun said:
Obviously that guy is a troll....IWLT does not offer frequencies up to 2ghz.
Anyway, us folks in the g2 section appreciate each and every kernel we get as they are RARE. Don't mind the trolls.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How was I trolling? I wasn't putting down the kernel or anything it was simply a neutral statement. Go back under your bridge.
erichung_13 said:
How was I trolling? I wasn't putting down the kernel or anything it was simply a neutral statement. Go back under your bridge.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Great contribution to the thread.
How were you trolling? You come into the thread and write one sentence stating that its a mirror of another kernel (which its not) and then put a :/ face after it? Nuff said.
On another note, I fastbooted this kernel and its running great for me. Haven't perm flashed it yet though.
Sent from my HTC Vision using XDA App
It runs fine on my phone so far as well. But I wasn't expecting much trouble anyway since it is basically the latest CM kernel. The undervolting shouldn't be a problem for most phones and the extreme overclocking isn't active by default.
How do you flash this kernel?
It's easiest using fastboot and adb from the android sdk. I guess I could also build a flashable zip, but I don't feel like figuring how that works. If someone makes one, feel free to attach it here.
Flashing the kernel:
Code:
fastboot flash zimage zImage
Flashing the new WiFi module:
Code:
adb remount
adb push bcm4329.ko /system/lib/modules
After using my kernel for quite a while it seems to be pretty stable on my phone. Running at 2GHz I sometimes get random freezes, but 1.92GHz seems stable for daily use. I also tried playing 3d games on 1.92GHz for about half an hour and even though the phone got noticeably hot everything went peachy.
I usually set the permissions once I push the new wifi module. Is that not neccessary?
Sent from my HTC Vision using XDA App
I don't think it is, at least not for being able to use it. It could have security implications, but I don't see any since adb runs in the root users context and thus the file would be owned by root. Users shouldn't be able to modify it in any way.
Hi Dekar, do I need to use the new Wifi Kernel for this Kernel to function properly?
Yeah you have to use the wifi module I've attached. If you have stability problems tell me and I'll upload the non-undervolted version I made for someone else.
What's battery life like with the undervolt? I'm currently using the stock CM7 kernel with 245/1113 interactive, with only data, sync, and auto-brightness (no GPS/Bluetooth/etc) in good coverage areas and I'm going like 1% down every 1-5 minutes or so of regular use (basically just web browsing and texting). Not sure if it's the settings or my (stock/original) battery or what.
magus57 said:
What's battery life like with the undervolt? I'm currently using the stock CM7 kernel with 245/1113 interactive, with only data, sync, and auto-brightness (no GPS/Bluetooth/etc) in good coverage areas and I'm going like 1% down every 1-5 minutes or so of regular use (basically just web browsing and texting). Not sure if it's the settings or my (stock/original) battery or what.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thats about normal for this kernel.
Well I got my Vision used and it came with the Mugen 1800mAh extended battery, thus I can't really compare it to a stock one. Also I didn't use the stock kernel for long. But I am really pleased with the battery life, my G1 was far worse.
will this kernel work with ICS? Kindly advise.
tried on virtuous quattro, ended in a boot loop D:
Hard reboot after logo screen back to recovery, zimage does not like my phone apparently. Tried several flashing methods. No go.
Ok my understanding is that I can't copy these zips to my SD card root and flash with clockwork mod recovery? I'm fairly familiar with flashing cm roms but this will be my first kernel flash.
Also, if I preform a full back up, will that also backup my current kernel should I need to revert to it in the event this kernel doesn't mesh well with my hardware?
Thanks,
RiE
Sent from my HTC Vision
I heard there was a problem with stability issues before. Has it been fixed?
Also, do any of you guys feel the need to OC in the first place?
iArtisan said:
I heard there was a problem with stability issues before. Has it been fixed?
Also, do any of you guys feel the need to OC in the first place?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I tried OC'ing to 1,4 for a short time, didnt get any instabilities.
Which leads me to question two. No I don't feel the need to OC this phone, it is still good enough to cope with everything i throw at it.
The worst that will happen is that it will run a little hotter than normal. I was running Trinity Kernel on RasCream ROM clocked at 1.5GHz and it was fine, nothing crashed, no reboots, all was well.
Besides; It's a Nexus, it was built for this!
This varies for everyone
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
Meh. It all varies. No 2 chipsets are the same. What may work for someone else may not work for you. Trial and error is the only surefire way to find out.
Hi,
I agree with what has been said above, all the CPU's are not equal but actually the progress made by the kernel devs allows all (or almost) phones to run at 1.3* Ghz (1.34/1.35 Ghz, it depends of the kernel) without any issues.I think it's for all, actually I don't remember a user with issues at 1.3* Ghz...
And for most phones 1.5 Ghz is fine.For some others, above 1.5 Ghz is problematic but it depends also of too many factors.
Now it's not like it when the Genx came out, where 1.3 Ghz was the limit of CPU overclock for all the phones.
And many people can run stable at 1.65 Ghz, also it depends of the kernel.
For me for example my max CPU freq usable each day, so stable is 1.72 Ghz with Glados kernel, above (like 1.8 Ghz) it runs fine for 30 mins, sometimes 1 hour, but after always freeze/reboot... maybe my CPU can't reach this CPU freq or maybe my settings are wrong (voltage) ...
I agree, an extreme overclock like 1.72 Ghz is not really necessary for all day (heat, battery life, etc...) but a little overclock like 1.5/1.53 Ghz and you a difference in certain case (openning some apps, general UI, browsing, etc...).
But if we have the ability to test and play...why not... ,in any case for me it's yes, I like overclock and test the possibilities/limits of my phone, different settings...
Everyone does as he wants and it depends on what you want (battery life,a little more power in some situation like playing or a higher bench score ).
Well considering Texas instruments recommended highest clock speed for this processor is 1.5 ghz I'd say your fine. Anything above that is dependent on how well your chip set will handle it. Besides who honestly has needed to OC for anything other than benchmarks?
Sent From My Sprint Galaxy Nexus
Re: Post by user splus in Franco.kernel thread
Sorry to post in this forum, but I don't have the minimum post count yet to post in the development forums
I read a post today by splus which I found very interesting,
In r220 hispeed_freq parameter in governor control has been changed from 1200000 (was an old value from first version of Franco JB kernel) to 1228000. As a result CPU now spends most of its time at either at 384 or 1228 MHz, and much less time at higher frequencies.
For some reason if speed_freq value is set to a step lower than 1228000 then it will make CPU to use all higher frequencies in a more balanced way.
What I noticed is that for 1036 it needs to have slightly higher value of 1037000, because 1036000 will put the CPU only to 729 MHz. This is probably because the real 1036 MHz frequency is something like 1036.xx MHz, so it's best to set speed_freq value to a 1000 more than the desired frequency.
Hispeed_freq parameter is just an initial higher speed frequency that CPU will jump to when there's some CPU load. And if the CPU load is still high after the CPU goes into this frequency (in other words if this frequency is not enough to finish the job) then interactive governor will put the CPU in even higher frequencies.
On stock JB kernel max frequency is 1200 MHz, and hispeed_freq is 700000.
When speed_freq is set to 1228000 it will use mostly 384 and 1228 MHz frequencies.
Set speed_freq to 1037000 (or previous 1200000) and more higher frequencies will be used.
There's certainly many possibilities to play with min and max CPU values, together with speed_freq to come to the best values. And probably for each max CPU frequency different speed_freq value would work best...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
but I wanted to learn more so I did a lot of Googling about the parameters of the interactive governor. Unfortunately, I kept finding the same few beginners' guides to the different governors available, explaining and comparing their capabilities. There was no advanced explanation of the parameters or their possible valid values.
I found this post by RootzWiki user abqnm, which shed a little more light on the hispeed_freq parameter, and input_boost also. From what I've read on various sites, the input_boost seems to be a binary parameter, so setting it to 1 should jump the CPU up to the frequency specified in hispeed_freq immediately upon detecting a screen touch event. This would make your GNex feel a bit more responsive, without having to wait for the CPU to hit load, but it could negatively affect battery life. In my case, running 729/1612 with hispeed_freq set down at 1036MHz (1037000 in governor control), it's not that big a jump and opening a couple of apps would likely push my speed up beyond it soon anyway, so the battery hit would probably not be much.
As splus said:
After lot of fiddling I found it works best when hispeed_freq is set to 1037000 (not 1036000, it looks like that frequency is actually closer to 1037 MHz so 1036000 doesn't "reach" it).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
so using 1036000 in governor control would correspond to the next step down, 729MHz. I know it's easy enough to stick on an extra 1000 for safety, to ensure we hit the right steps, but I'd be curious to know the exact kHz values we could be using.
I'm off to start experimenting with undervolting these new CPU freqs, and my 512GPU Core to reduce my temps a bit.
In case anyone asks, I'm on stock JRO03C w/Franco r220 512GPU.
Very good post! Welcome to XDA! :good:
I'll link to your post on the franco thread just so it gets a couple views from people there.
Edit: I see that you've actually been here awhile! Go help a few more people so you can contribute in the Dev forum.
Yup, that's me... total lurker! I usually defer to the wisdom of the devs and seasoned members, and 99% of the time if I've had a problem/question re my Nexus it's already been posted and there are whole conversations for me to read and digest. I hate the idea of clogging up a thread with a "me too" or "thanks" post, so generally if I don't have something useful to contribute I keep quiet and hang in the shadows. I only come out to feed.
So basically, I'm a knowledge vampire.
That's enough OT... Franco stuff!
I've previously read droidphile's governors thread to which splus linked in their reply to your repost in Franco.kernel. In post #2, containing the governor tweaks (which I found very useful) even droidphile seems to have the wrong idea about the "hispeed_freq" parameter, stating:
(Default value is scaling max freq)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The same section also omits any mention of the "input_boost" parameter.
My undervolting is going well. Inspired by the voltages on rogersnm's signature, I'm currently running these:
Code:
1612 - 800 mV
1536 - 750 mV
1420 - 750 mV
1305 - 750 mV
1228 - 725 mV
1036 - 725 mV
729 - 700 mV
384 - 700mV
CORE -
512/384 - 900 mV
307 - 900 mV
153 - 825 mV
IVA -
266 - 600 mV
133 - 600 mV
I added an extra 100mV to the seemingly rock bottom CPU voltages for safety, but I'll try to reduce them gradually. I've been stable for over 40 hours so far on this setup. With r220, Franco really seems to have nailed it!
BTW, thanks for reposting in the Franco.kernel thread :highfive:
Fantastic. Keep us updated on your progress with voltages, seems like you're doing a great job!
Also, happy to help!
nemotheblue said:
Code:
1612 - 800 mV
1536 - 750 mV
1420 - 750 mV
1305 - 750 mV
1228 - 725 mV
1036 - 725 mV
729 - 700 mV
384 - 700mV
CORE -
512/384 - 900 mV
307 - 900 mV
153 - 825 mV
IVA -
266 - 600 mV
133 - 600 mV
I added an extra 100mV to the seemingly rock bottom CPU voltages for safety, but I'll try to reduce them gradually. I've been stable for over 40 hours so far on this setup. With r220, Franco really seems to have nailed it!
BTW, thanks for reposting in the Franco.kernel thread :highfive:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm trying these too. So far so good!
Hi nemotheblue. Good post and findings!
I'm just looking at those voltage values you wrote - are you sure you turned off the SR?
If you haven't don't turn it off with those voltages because you'll get an instant reboot, they seem super low.
Rogersnm wrote and fiddled a lot with voltages, some very good posts.
Better go back to stock voltages, turn off the SR, and then go little by little down with frequencies. When adjusting each frequency best is to set that particular frequency as min (or max if it is higher) frequency so the CPU actually uses it.
And when you get a reboot then just use 25mV higher than the one with reboot.
I'd suggest to have fsync turned on when you fiddle with voltages because that will lessen the possibility of loss of data when phone reboots.
Another thing to have in mind is that even some combinations of frequencies do not work together. Some frequency might work OK with certain voltage with certain max/min frequencies but might not with other min/max frequencies. It looks like the actual change from one frequency to another (and depends from which to which) can determine a lot if a voltage is stable or not.
Also, it apparently very much depends on a ROM you use - different ROMs will probably need readjustment of voltage table.
Undervolting actually won't help much with battery life, smart reflex does a very good job already. It would help most if you game a lot or use your phone heavily, so then when higher frequencies are used the phone would get less hot and use slightly less power.
Otherwise, and especially if you change ROMs, I'd say it isn't worth the trouble.
nemotheblue said:
..................................
I've previously read droidphile's governors thread to which splus linked in their reply to your repost in Franco.kernel. In post #2, containing the governor tweaks (which I found very useful) even droidphile seems to have the wrong idea about the "hispeed_freq" parameter, stating:
..............................
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Since there's lot of info to cover, mistakes can happen. I'll correct it if something is wrong.
Anyhow, if you check the interactive governor code,
if (!hispeed_freq)
hispeed_freq = policy->max;
This means if kernel default for the value of hispeed_freq=0, then it's assigned to policy_max aka scaling_max.
hispeed_freq is kinda like max_load_freq for ondemand.
Btw, input_boost is not available for interactive governor 'designed' for i9100 GS2 with Exynos chip. I don't know about Gnexus' Omap. Since i take one of the GS2 kernel as reference, governors params are kinda specific to i9100 and exynos architecture.
splus said:
Hi nemotheblue. Good post and findings!
I'm just looking at those voltage values you wrote - are you sure you turned off the SR?
...
I'd suggest to have fsync turned on when you fiddle with voltages because that will lessen the possibility of loss of data when phone reboots.
...
Undervolting actually won't help much with battery life, smart reflex does a very good job already. It would help most if you game a lot or use your phone heavily, so then when higher frequencies are used the phone would get less hot and use slightly less power.
...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
@splus Wow, thanks for joining in on my little thread! Rest assured, before I started my tinkering I turned SR off and fsync on. I've read all 2306 pages of the Franco.kernel thread and avidly followed several conversations within it. I don't mind being a bit adventurous and trying out tweaks and mods; I just prefer to let other, more educated people try it first! I'm a measure twice, cut once kinda guy.
I followed rogersnm's undervolting saga in the Franco thread up to a couple of weeks ago, and recently caught up with his linaro thread, but I was as amazed as you seem to be at the tiny numbers he's currently reporting.
That being said, the voltages I reported were totally stable for me the last 3 days, until tonight. Tonight, I went to a double bill of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight - 5 hours in a huge, sold out cinema with easily 1,000 people. By the second movie, the room temperature was in the high 30s, if not 40C. I got an email, had a read, tapped back to inbox and BAM! The screen froze for about 3 seconds, then rebooted. The crazy thing is, I tried an hour later to reapply the undervolt and it froze straight away. I'm back on SR for a while, but I might try again tomorrow.
My original intention with the undervolting was just to drop the CORE, because I'm getting great performance from the 512GPU, but I notice the area under the camera on the back of the phone can get pretty hot if I'm playing games or watching a video for >30mins. Granted, I don't do that too often, but I figured it'd be nice to eliminate the extra heat. Once I saw the power saving calculations in rogersnm's chart, I was convinced to go the whole hog. The jury's out...
droidphile said:
Since there's lot of info to cover, mistakes can happen. I'll correct it if something is wrong.
Anyhow, if you check the interactive governor code,
if (!hispeed_freq)
hispeed_freq = policy->max;
This means if kernel default for the value of hispeed_freq=0, then it's assigned to policy_max aka scaling_max.
hispeed_freq is kinda like max_load_freq for ondemand.
Btw, input_boost is not available for interactive governor 'designed' for i9100 GS2 with Exynos chip. I don't know about Gnexus' Omap. Since i take one of the GS2 kernel as reference, governors params are kinda specific to i9100 and exynos architecture.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
@droidphile Thanks for taking the time to reply. I didn't mean to sound like I was attacking your guide; I'd just read conflicting information from multiple other sources and played the numbers. I was labouring under the false assumption that all interactive governors are created equal. Is there some kind of official/original reference/guide/man page for the governors and their parameters, or are you devs left to interpret the code for yourselves?
I must admit, I'm more confused than ever now. I just can't reconcile your explanation with splus' claim that hispeed_freq=1037000 is the sweet spot for getting interactive to use the intermediate freqs up to a max well above 1036MHz???
nemotheblue said:
@splus Wow, thanks for joining in on my little thread! Rest assured, before I started my tinkering I turned SR off and fsync on. I've read all 2306 pages of the Franco.kernel thread and avidly followed several conversations within it. I don't mind being a bit adventurous and trying out tweaks and mods; I just prefer to let other, more educated people try it first! I'm a measure twice, cut once kinda guy.
I followed rogersnm's undervolting saga in the Franco thread up to a couple of weeks ago, and recently caught up with his linaro thread, but I was as amazed as you seem to be at the tiny numbers he's currently reporting.
That being said, the voltages I reported were totally stable for me the last 3 days, until tonight. Tonight, I went to a double bill of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight - 5 hours in a huge, sold out cinema with easily 1,000 people. By the second movie, the room temperature was in the high 30s, if not 40C. I got an email, had a read, tapped back to inbox and BAM! The screen froze for about 3 seconds, then rebooted. The crazy thing is, I tried an hour later to reapply the undervolt and it froze straight away. I'm back on SR for a while, but I might try again tomorrow.
My original intention with the undervolting was just to drop the CORE, because I'm getting great performance from the 512GPU, but I notice the area under the camera on the back of the phone can get pretty hot if I'm playing games or watching a video for >30mins. Granted, I don't do that too often, but I figured it'd be nice to eliminate the extra heat. Once I saw the power saving calculations in rogersnm's chart, I was convinced to go the whole hog. The jury's out...
@droidphile Thanks for taking the time to reply. I didn't mean to sound like I was attacking your guide; I'd just read conflicting information from multiple other sources and played the numbers. I was labouring under the false assumption that all interactive governors are created equal. Is there some kind of official/original reference/guide/man page for the governors and their parameters, or are you devs left to interpret the code for yourselves?
I must admit, I'm more confused than ever now. I just can't reconcile your explanation with splus' claim that hispeed_freq=1037000 is the sweet spot for getting interactive to use the intermediate freqs up to a max well above 1036MHz???
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, if you do some gaming and more intensive stuff then it might be worth to find some good voltage values.
Still, those voltages seem pretty far from what hardware would be capable of running so that makes me think the SR check box wasn't really displaying its actual state somehow.
If you were using Franco's app did you check the last tab to see if mV values at certain frequencies were the same as in your table? If yes then I'm just amazed you were able to run it that way...
Anyway, good luck with further undervolting, please post your stable voltages when you find them...
If you have higher OC CPU frequency as max value in interactive (I'm talking about GNex, every chipset behaves differently) then it looks to me that if you set hispeed_freq to 1228000 the CPU would often just stay at that frequency, as if the system decides that it's enough to finish the job. But if you set it to 1037000 then it often determines it is not enough and scales the CPU to higher frequencies, and then you get the CPU to actually use higher frequencies as well.
Other direction would be to set hispeed_freq to even higher frequencies and that'll definitely make it more responsive but at a battery life cost.
The most responsive system would be that CPU goes to max whenever there's something happening. Google actually said at their IO that they tuned JB to go to max frequency at any touch but if you use the stock kernel and check CPU Spy charts you'll see that CPU goes initially only to 700 MHz.
There are other parameters, but it's all about finding a sweet spot for performance and battery life...
Needless to say, tuning all those governor parameters is greatly dependent on available frequencies, programmatically implemented governors and its parameters (which can be changed, a kernel developer can design and implement his own governor and its parameters) and especially chipsets and the way they behave. Every device is very different...
I think we would have better performance if there would be less frequencies in a kernel than currently in Franco's, but if the CPU is really efficient at scaling frequencies up and down through many steps all the time then maybe not.
Either case life goes on and I'm looking forward to see that new Batman myself in couple of days!
Fine folk of XDA,
Apologies for my long absence! I wasn't abandoning the thread; I got a call to work on a short film and had an insane 10 days of 13-16 hour working days and my brain was just too tired in the evenings to keep up with testing and tweaking. Plus, I needed my phone 24/7 stable to handle the continuous flow of calls, texts and emails from the production office.
So, I reverted to SR and dropped my max freq to 1228 and had no problems.
Catching up on the Franco thread tonight, I read a post by daggerxXxsin saying
I am running 600mv on 384-729 and 675mv on 1036-1228. Only works when I'm on 512gpu though. No random reboots or nothin'. Plays games like a champ and never heats up (temp never goes higher than 45°)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm currently trying these out on 729-1228 with SR off and fsync on, along with the following:
Code:
CORE -
512/384 - 900 mV
307 - 900 mV
153 - 825 mV
I'm gonna leave IVA alone on SR. I never really noticed any difference undervolting it before, and I figure if I'm pushing my MPU voltages so low, I'm just begging for crashes so it's best not to mess with anything that would affect I/O.
I'm currently running r225 512GPU, and I had some wifi issues where the indicator would frequently switch from blue to grey and lose the connection. However, having read some frequent posts in the Franco thread, I've switched from CWM to TWRP, wiped caches and reflashed Franco so I'll wait and see if the problem resurfaces.
BAH! Screw it, I just refreshed the Franco thread and r230 is out. Gonna flash and see how I get on...
Hi again nemo, just stumbled on this thread again
Wondering what posts indicate that CWM vs. TWRP recoveries would make a difference for the booted OS's Wifi/Google Services connectivity?
As I understand it JB in general just has a bit of a Wifi problem vs. ICS and even with ICS the Galaxy Nexus does vs. any other phone. I'm currently having acceptable Wifi using franco 241 (which has a new IO scheduler which makes things feel extremely snappy).
I'm pretty sure all I based that decision on was this discussion in the Franco.kernel thread. In retrospect, kinda half-baked but I must say I'm impressed with this recovery anyway!
I'm still following the thread religiously, rocking M5 at the moment though I'll likely jump on the first 512GPU nightly that comes out. I spent hours yesterday reading the MiNCO and MiNCO+ threads, very carefully backed up, then flashed v4 and immediately ran into this major roadblock and ended up reverting. Further study is required...
A few things come to mind with that storage problem:
1) Maybe that the sdcard bin (as is also in franco's cwm zips) is installed and messing things up weirdly. You'll need to push the stock one back (first post of franco.Kernel thread iirc).
2) A recent ROM Manager bug where .nomedia files were getting placed in the /sdcard/ top level folder, so you might want to investigate that with adb shell (though this would be weird considering you say you're using TWRP and ROM Manager is CWM).
3) Go to Apps > All > MediaStorage, Force Stop and clear data+cache. Reboot to have MediaScanner rebuild the MediaStore.
Edit: Just saw your post in the linked thread... looks like you tried 2+3... so try 1?
osm0sis said:
...1) Maybe that the sdcard bin (as is also in franco's cwm zips) is installed and messing things up weirdly. You'll need to push the stock one back (first post of franco.Kernel thread iirc)...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Very clever! Way to think outside the box, ossie :highfive:
I should have time to try again tonight, so I'll let you know how it plays out. While I'm at it, I'm excited to try out DarkJelly's inverted gapps, but I'll make sure to tackle the storage problem before flashing any apps/mods
So I couldn't wait!
I was unable to shake the feeling I might have just had a bad download of MiNCO, so I grabbed a fresh copy before I began. Flashed the ROM, Gallery worked fine. Flashed a navbar/battery icon mod, Gallery still ok. Gapps, no problem. Inverted apps, smooth sailing!
I now have a fully functional, customised ROM and no storage problem whatsoever. I must've just borked the first MiNCO download...
All's well that ends well
And I successfully tricked you into making your 10th post, so my work here is done! :laugh:
Now come join us in the main thread :good:
osm0sis said:
And I successfully tricked you into making your 10th post, so my work here is done! :laugh:
Now come join us in the main thread :good:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nice one! :highfive:
Can someone tell me where I can find over-clock able kernel for my international One X? And what is the biggest clock speed on ONE X?
At present faux kernel can oc depending on what variant CPU you have but max at 1.6ghz
I have a v2 and can do 1.55 quad fine
Sent from my HTC One X using xda app-developers app
Eternity Project has an OC version up to 1.7GHz single core and 1.6GHz quad core
ZeroInfinity said:
Eternity Project has an OC version up to 1.7GHz single core and 1.6GHz quad core
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Can you post link?
stefan063 said:
Can you post link?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1640532
Be careful of OC, always remember, not all chips are made equal
About last Repacked Eternity Project for ARHD 9.x.x
Hello,
I try the Last repacked eternity project kernel for ARHD 9.x.x the Kernel: 3.4 v0.38 (Overclocked) at :
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1654982
But the module file was repacked for CMW ROM.
Who find good repacked module corresponding to this kernel ?
Thank you for jour help.
Underclock
As this thread is about setting CPU speeds, can somebody help me with my problem as no one is responding?
Its about underclocking..
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1868011
Thanks in advance!
how does the OC work? i mean then running all our core it is limited to 1.2 ghz and is 1.5 on a single core.
does that men all cores run at the OC value or just the single core?
Sent from my Transformer TF101 using xda app-developers app
I suggest you flash faux's kernel.
It can oc to 1.6GHZ for most user~
and it support s2W!
I expect many users will be aware of this information, but just in case you aren't.
Anyone overclocking should be aware that this will usually lead to higher power consumption which leads to more heat produced and lower battery life.
Especially if it is necessary to overvolt to acheive higher clock frequencies with stability.
Power consumption is proportional to Voltage squared, so small increases in core coltage can result in larger increases in power consumption than mught be thought.
Needless to say this can have negative impacts on battery discharge time and overall life (due to higher temperatures).
Plus there may be some throttling back of frequency if high temperatures are reached. Also possible that frequency may be reduced to 1Ghz maximum when battery voltage is low (i.e when discharged)
Hope this is helpful (first post here)
paul_59 said:
I expect many users will be aware of this information, but just in case you aren't.
Anyone overclocking should be aware that this will usually lead to higher power consumption which leads to more heat produced and lower battery life.
Especially if it is necessary to overvolt to acheive higher clock frequencies with stability.
Power consumption is proportional to Voltage squared, so small increases in core coltage can result in larger increases in power consumption than mught be thought.
Needless to say this can have negative impacts on battery discharge time and overall life (due to higher temperatures).
Plus there may be some throttling back of frequency if high temperatures are reached. Also possible that frequency may be reduced to 1Ghz maximum when battery voltage is low (i.e when discharged)
Hope this is helpful (first post here)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
CPU throttle starts at 85c with thermal TJ-max of 99c.
also there is many debates about this, higher speed need more power which drains battery, but that said it means work gets faster meaning it can idle faster saving power, same the other side slower speeds save power but take longer to get work done using more power.
Sent from my Transformer TF101 using xda app-developers app
stefan063 said:
Can someone tell me where I can find over-clock able kernel for my international One X? And what is the biggest clock speed on ONE X?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Go to Faux123 and read the opening post
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1647993
it will teach you about Tegra 3 variants.
Flash Faux123 latest kernel to know what variant you have.
You can have 1.5ghz quadcore minimum, except if you have the poor variant0 of the Tegra 3, and 1.6ghz quadcore max if you have variant 3
So the overclocking you can achieve depends on your Tegra 3 variant, whatever the kernel, don't trust the figures in kernel threads titles, they just give the max if you have variant 3. And the majority of people have variant 1 so limited to 1.5ghz quadcore and there's nothing to do about it, no future kernel can change the way your CPU was manufactured.
Just, SetCPU can display 1.6ghz or more, but if you have variant 0 or 1 it will never use it (CPUspy will say 1550 and 1600 are unused frequencies)
Variant 1 can go upt to 1550mhz but not for quadcore, so who cares....! Same for kernels claiming up to 1.7ghz, it's in single/dual core, so once more, who cares?
What is important is what max speed you can achieve in quadcore, nothing else, and the limits are clearly defined by your Tegra3 variant
"all chips are not created equal" was a silly bull**** invented more than one year ago as an easy answer to noobs claiming they couldn't overclock their dual core at their max. Now, on the One-X and because of Nvidia unstable quality"all chips are not created equal" is sadly the truth.
PS: wrong=> to say that overclocking means more voltage, undervolting a custom kernel a little can surprisingly reduce heat when you push your CPU to its max,I can have both 1500mhz quadcore and less voltage than stock, as well as less heat (I was surprised, really, on the Sensation I had always found undervolting kinda useless)
PPS: true=> thermal throttle will always come pretty soon and reduce your max speed......
i900frenchaddict said:
Go to Faux123 and read the opening post
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1647993
it will teach you about Tegra 3 variants.
Flash Faux123 latest kernel to know what variant you have.
You can have 1.5ghz quadcore minimum, except if you have the poor variant0 of the Tegra 3, and 1.6ghz quadcore max if you have variant 3
So the overclocking you can achieve depends on your Tegra 3 variant, whatever the kernel, don't trust the figures in kernel threads titles, they just give the max if you have variant 3. And the majority of people have variant 1 so limited to 1.5ghz quadcore and there's nothing to do about it, no future kernel can change the way your CPU was manufactured.
Just, SetCPU can display 1.6ghz or more, but if you have variant 0 or 1 it will never use it (CPUspy will say 1550 and 1600 are unused frequencies)
Variant 1 can go upt to 1550mhz but not for quadcore, so who cares....! Same for kernels claiming up to 1.7ghz, it's in single/dual core, so once more, who cares?
What is important is what max speed you can achieve in quadcore, nothing else, and the limits are clearly defined by your Tegra3 variant
"all chips are not created equal" was a silly bull**** invented more than one year ago as an easy answer to noobs claiming they couldn't overclock their dual core at their max. Now, on the One-X and because of Nvidia unstable quality"all chips are not created equal" is sadly the truth.
PS: wrong=> to say that overclocking means more voltage, undervolting a custom kernel a little can surprisingly reduce heat when you push your CPU to its max,I can have both 1500mhz quadcore and less voltage than stock, as well as less heat (I was surprised, really, on the Sensation I had always found undervolting kinda useless)
PPS: true=> thermal throttle will always come pretty soon and reduce your max speed......
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nice words and I just won't to add variant 1 can now go to 1.55ghz with faux 07vf I'm currently usein with the lowest most stable undervolt values and less heat than stock kernel and gameplay is amazing also on arhd 9.4
Sent from my HTC One X using xda premium
treebill said:
CPU throttle starts at 85c with thermal TJ-max of 99c.
also there is many debates about this, higher speed need more power which drains battery, but that said it means work gets faster meaning it can idle faster saving power, same the other side slower speeds save power but take longer to get work done using more power.
Sent from my Transformer TF101 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your argument makes sense, but unless the governor is very efficient at controlling the CPU speed very quickly, in most cases your argument doesn’t hold true. For example when playing a game or running a CPU intensive application (where overclocking has any use) the processor works at full speed for the duration of the application.
EDIT: Frankly I don’t see any point in overclocking a phone like One X. I don’t play many games, but the few games I have played ran very smoothly. And if people are overclocking because of the (barely noticeable) laggy UI then overclocking is not a real fix anyway. Installing a custom ROM (perhaps JB), a different launcher, tweaking background apps/services are some of the more sensible and effective things to do instead.
No disrespect to the devs who are working on overclocking, but IMO HTC and nVidia must have spent a considerable amount of time and effort designing the CPU and deciding the optimal operational parameters to maximize performance while minimizing battery drain. Therefore anything out of those parameters (in theory at least) should impact either stability, or battery life. Perhaps the values HTC has decided are not the maximum possible values , because I assume they would have designed the phone to handle few exceptional conditions (i.e: extremely hot weathers). But I think over clocking would probably cause more problems in the long run than whatever the little gains you experience in short term. Just my 2c.
joewong1991 said:
Nice words and I just won't to add variant 1 can now go to 1.55ghz with faux 07vf I'm currently usein with the lowest most stable undervolt values and less heat than stock kernel and gameplay is amazing also on arhd 9.4
Sent from my HTC One X using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Late reply, I hope you'll read it anyway
I tried faux 007b5, so overclock free too, I had 1.55ghz indeed, but never for quadcore, just for single or dual. Sadly I wasn't able to reach 1.5ghz quadcore but 1.4
With 007u, I have 1.5ghz quadcore, but 1.55 is an unused frequency
Can you check, with tegrastats, if you reach 1.55ghz quadcore or only for 1,2 (or3??) cores?
i900frenchaddict said:
Late reply, I hope you'll read it anyway
I tried faux 007b5, so overclock free too, I had 1.55ghz indeed, but never for quadcore, just for single or dual. Sadly I wasn't able to reach 1.5ghz quadcore but 1.4
With 007u, I have 1.5ghz quadcore, but 1.55 is an unused frequency
Can you check, with tegrastats, if you reach 1.55ghz quadcore or only for 1,2 (or3??) cores?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I tried tegrastats and I got 1.55 4 cores for about 20 sec and then 2 shut of and then ran 2 at 1150 playin dead trigger and on cod zombies 2 cores at 1350 witch I find strange faux 0105b
Sent from my HTC One X using xda premium
Hi there. I have a strange "issue" with my phone. Substantially, it looks like I have a chip capable of EXTREME undervolting. For example, gpu running @ 160 mhz and ONLY 700 mV. 533 mhz is @ 925 mV. It's pretty exaggerated in my opinion. I stress tested the gpu with all benchmarks and games that came in my mind at all steps. Same performance but huge undervolting. I am using Thunder Lite v3 and Neak kernel 2.02. I am currently, after 3 hours of messing with the gpu, dedicating myself to the cpu. I am now typing this with four cores active @ 1.6 ghz and, attention, 1000 mV. And there's still room for more...
It's too much in my opinion, so this may be a stupid question. Is this normal? Are there any powerful stress tests I may use? I am using multiple runs of Antutu at the moment. Is there a way I can verify the voltages I am applying are actually corresponding to what the cpu gets? It's too much in my opinion. I could have some huge luck, but I doubt.