I noticed that LG has the following kernel source sitting out on the web:
http://goo.gl/KHNwYf
It's listed as the LG-D850, which I imagine is very close or the same as the 851. I own the T-Mobile variant, as most of us here do; does anyone know if the other variants run the same kernel?
prata said:
I noticed that LG has the following kernel source sitting out on the web:
http://goo.gl/KHNwYf
It's listed as the LG-D850, which I imagine is very close or the same as the 851. I own the T-Mobile variant, as most of us here do; does anyone know if the other variants run the same kernel?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's because you searched for the wrong thing. It'd be better to search for "D85", keeping in mind that the T-Mobile variant is the D851.
https://www.lg.com/global/support/opensource/opensourceList?types=ALL&search=D85
As you can see, all variants that I'm aware of are listed.
Now, my findings have been that the D851 kernel source has had all of its comments stripped, making it a pain to merge stuff in to. The D850 has the comments in, as does the D855 source. So, I don't know what's up with that. I do know however that between the kernels, LG removed support for a panel or two between the D850, 851, and 855. Couldn't even get the damn thing (any kernel source) to compile until I did this:
https://github.com/ConnorBaker/lge_kernel_d851/commit/121e0c10062184bc21dd8b772ea057a200b94cd2
I'd use the D850 source as base for the T-Mobile variant, since the T-Mobile variant (via my research on the webz) tends to be the closest to the international version. Also, keep in mind that the defconfigs, although they share the same names through the different kernel sources, are different: i.e., the D850 T-Mobile defconfig won't match up with the D851 or D855 one's. Furthermore, there are defconfigs for Broadcom compatibility, which leads me to believe that LG is using both Qualcomm and Broadcom chips for Wi-Fi.
To my knowledge, no one has tried to build and boot the D850 kernel on the D851. So, only time will tell if the kernel sources, are in fact, interchangeable.
Warm regards,
Connor Baker
Connor Baker said:
It's because you searched for the wrong thing. It'd be better to search for "D85", keeping in mind that the T-Mobile variant is the D851.
https://www.lg.com/global/support/opensource/opensourceList?types=ALL&search=D85
As you can see, all variants that I'm aware of are listed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Derp....foolish of me. Thanks for clarifying.
Connor Baker said:
Now, my findings have been that the D851 kernel source has had all of its comments stripped, making it a pain to merge stuff in to. The D850 has the comments in, as does the D855 source. So, I don't know what's up with that. I do know however that between the kernels, LG removed support for a panel or two between the D850, 851, and 855. Couldn't even get the damn thing (any kernel source) to compile until I did this:
https://github.com/ConnorBaker/lge_kernel_d851/commit/121e0c10062184bc21dd8b772ea057a200b94cd2
I'd use the D850 source as base for the T-Mobile variant, since the T-Mobile variant (via my research on the webz) tends to be the closest to the international version. Also, keep in mind that the defconfigs, although they share the same names through the different kernel sources, are different: i.e., the D850 T-Mobile defconfig won't match up with the D851 or D855 one's. Furthermore, there are defconfigs for Broadcom compatibility, which leads me to believe that LG is using both Qualcomm and Broadcom chips for Wi-Fi.
To my knowledge, no one has tried to build and boot the D850 kernel on the D851. So, only time will tell if the kernel sources, are in fact, interchangeable.
Warm regards,
Connor Baker
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Now that I'm at a desktop. Thanks so much for all this information. I really appreciate it. I'm poking around at the source,because I'm a glutton for punishment apparently. You've really provided me with some great feedback, and again I'm highly appreciative.
I realize this thread isn't new, but has anyone figured out if you could put the T-Mobile kernal on an AT&T device?
mascaliente said:
I realize this thread isn't new, but has anyone figured out if you could put the T-Mobile kernal on an AT&T device?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why would you want to?
Related
we have had a try on ICS.kdz and found it maybe true
Yang fighting!! Gfan !!!
Yes its working now
link to dl plz
http://115.com/file/be7r9zrz.
It is for lu6200, not su640(or p930).
but baseband is su640 chipset!?
chakata said:
It is for lu6200, not su640(or p930).
but baseband is su640 chipset!?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i am also confused by that, but it's true, i am serious
I just flash on my LU6200, everything seem ok,but bluetooth not working, this is an engineer version
洋鸡巴你怎么在这里啊
wuxin23 said:
洋鸡巴你怎么在这里啊
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
English please.
This ROM will NOT work on the P930/SU640. We've already had one member try it on his Canadian P930, and it's already bricked. He cannot restore back to the stock firmware either using any of the LG tools.
Even if he could write english, it would'nt be related to this thread. He was just greeting the poster above him and calling him a vagina...
I really dont understand why people cant wait, tough they know they're guys working on a ROM. I mean you can flash it, but please dont come here crying and spamming for help after you bricked your phone...
This doesn't work on the nitro HD soooo why are there so many posts about it here?
Sent from my LG-P930 using xda premium
Because the Chinese are flooding the forum, thinking that their device has a shred of association with the P930.
It is possible to put kernal's mod on a lu6200 from what I've been reading...so they are somewhat similar I think.
Epyoch said:
It is possible to put kernal's mod on a lu6200 from what I've been reading...so they are somewhat similar I think.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
as far as i know, they basically have the same hardware other than the cellular modem part, with p930 using the MDM9200 and lu6200 mdm9600. there're also some slight differences in flash layout. but that shouldn't be a major hindrance to porting 930's rom or the other way around.
freefall12 said:
as far as i know, they basically have the same hardware other than the cellular modem part, with p930 using the MDM9200 and lu6200 mdm9600. there're also some slight differences in flash layout. but that shouldn't be a major hindrance to porting 930's rom or the other way around.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Understand that, and as long as something good comes out from all these threads and posts that relates none to P930 whatsoever, and in the end we can get ICS on the Nitro due to them being here, then it's all good. Otherwise, I think it will be time for us to request the admins to either create a separate sub-forum for them and move those threads there, or time to wipe the forum clean from unrelated threads. I'm about had it seeing threads saying ICS for NITRO/OPTIMUS LTE everyday, making me think that we actually are getting something while it's not even related to our phone!
What it does mean to me, though, is that LG is currently still in the manufacturer customization stage for the Optimus LTE 6200 and probably for its brethren as well. What that means to me is that we might still have a couple months until carriers get their hands on the firmware to customize it for themselves. I'm afraid we won't get official OTA til late Q2 if it, indeed, comes Q2. My bet is still on arcee getting CM up and running pretty soon for us.
Edit, I am no expert on this subject though, so by all means take my musings at face value.
Malnilion said:
I'm afraid we won't get official OTA til late Q2 if it, indeed, comes Q2.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
samsung S2 getting ICS 15 of march. LG is loosing battle again
My bet is still on arcee getting CM up and running pretty soon for us.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well, but this http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=23220174&postcount=53 Ricardo Cerqueira could use lu6200 ics as building blocks for his CM9 port, couldn't he?
Billy Madison said:
samsung S2 getting ICS 15 of march. LG is loosing battle againwell, but this http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=23220174&postcount=53 Ricardo Cerqueira could use lu6200 ics as building blocks for his CM9 port, couldn't he?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is what I was trying to say earlier....but Arcee hasn't made any "public" post since mwc about anything related to the phones. At least not on the Cyanogen Mod Forums, nor Google + nor Twitter. I'm pretty sure he knows about the korean thing...and probably has a copy. From what I am guessing is that he needs to get 4 (not sure really, but I would think Video Acceleration, Wifi and Bluetooth, and gps) more things to work now that he has the radio. If he can take some of what the korean ics has....like video acceleration...it would speed up the job it would seem. However it may be incompatible and might make the whole process take longer.
As per the title really, I see a work in progress build over here - http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2666246 - and I'm desperate to give it a whirl, but it says US only. Is there no difference or is this likely to cause me problems.
Posted here because of my <10 status
mooter said:
As per the title really, I see a work in progress build over here - http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2666246 - and I'm desperate to give it a whirl, but it says US only. Is there no difference or is this likely to cause me problems.
Posted here because of my <10 status
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is very unlikely to boot. It doesn't contain the EUR device tree files.
I do hope to eventually add support for the other variants but not until I get everything working. The kernel diff's are manageable but I haven't looked at the other diff's to know how big an effort it would be.
If we happen to pickup someone that can develop and has the EUR lte variant, I'll happily work with them to create a unified build.
Glad I asked now! Thanks for confirming so quickly. Mine's not LTE, just wifi, but I get what you're saying about the device tree files. If there's any way I can help (perhaps by dumping my rom or whatever) just shout. Very much looking forward to seeing some CM on my new tab, but guess I need to remain patient while those cleverer than me get to work.
Keep it up!
I'm guessing it works on UK/EUR versions of the 8.4 now, as I see USA has been dropped from the title?!
/excited
mooter said:
I'm guessing it works on UK/EUR versions of the 8.4 now, as I see USA has been dropped from the title?!
/excited
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, it should work now. The latest release includes a kernel that merges the "USA" and the "EUR" kernels released by Samsung.
i have realized that no mainstream custom rom team is providing its flavor to lg g3 users (even after its specs are somehow more then that of samsung galaxy s5/one m8).. i know the reason might ber "not unlocked bootloader" but there already is a work around by team bump to bypass bootloader check.. i always have used paranoid rom on pretty much all older devices i had(and trust me, i loved i more then any rom out there);but sadly all i can do now is hit on my face with my flagship device as the team is not planning/yet have provided any official support/announcement!
please do consider or i will end up throwing this flagship device and take s5(with lower specs) just for PA :|
#AlreadyStayingParanoid
#Literally
Stop buying devices without official support...
#stayparanoid
Pirateghost said:
Stop buying devices without official support...
#stayparanoid
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why should we have to buy devices with official support for a free rom? I'd much rather make donations or create a kickstarter for G3 support from PA.
Yes PA has been my favorite AOSP rom since my Galaxy S3 but I don't see why they haven't already begun developing for the G3, especially with an official CM Nightly build for most G3 models D85X.
Unless they are waiting for a milestone or something>
Paranoid, plz support the G3 D855, even if I saw an official experimental I'd still contribute and offer to test.
Plz PA! You guys could take over the G3 XDA forums!
Much love!
- Jboi
We don't support devices that aren't open. We will never officially support the g3 in any form.
You can keep an eye on the legacy community on g+ and hope and pray that the legacy team takes on the g3.
There is more to supporting a device than just having one. That's the first step to supporting it.
#stayparanoid
JBOI1996 said:
Why should we have to buy devices with official support for a free rom? I'd much rather make donations or create a kickstarter for G3 support from PA.
Yes PA has been my favorite AOSP rom since my Galaxy S3 but I don't see why they haven't already begun developing for the G3, especially with an official CM Nightly build for most G3 models D85X.
Unless they are waiting for a milestone or something>
Paranoid, plz support the G3 D855, even if I saw an official experimental I'd still contribute and offer to test.
Plz PA! You guys could take over the G3 XDA forums!
Much love!
- Jboi
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you obviously don't realize supporting devices we don't own is a sh!t idea
ayysir said:
you obviously don't realize supporting devices we don't own is a sh!t idea
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What?! Didn't you know that we are supposed to own every device and have intimate knowledge of every device and build for it without having a device in hand to verify everything works?
I mean, hell, it's only money and time, right? Oh, **** I forgot, we don't have either of those things.
#stayparanoid
Pirateghost said:
We don't support devices that aren't open. We will never officially support the g3 in any form.
You can keep an eye on the legacy community on g+ and hope and pray that the legacy team takes on the g3.
There is more to supporting a device than just having one. That's the first step to supporting it.
#stayparanoid
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
T- Mobile LG G3 (d851) is the only with an unlocked bootloader and compared to the other variants of G3, this variant has less roms. I hope they support this variant instead since its the only one thats unlocked
xmagiicsx said:
T- Mobile LG G3 (d851) is the only with an unlocked bootloader and compared to the other variants of G3, this variant has less roms. I hope they support this variant instead since its the only one thats unlocked
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good luck with that....considering nobody has money to be buying devices like that and it would still fall under the legacy team.
#stayparanoid
Hello,
I have a question on what is needed by developers to make Lollipop ROMs for our S3.
I have been following the releases and know that the images for the Nexus devices are up and that OTAs have begun. Is that what developers need as a starting point?
As you can tell I'm fairly clueless about this so I appreciate any information because I like to follow along.
Thanks!
Devs need the actual sources to build, which have been released. Unfortunately they can't work with the factory images for Nexus devices.
If I remember correctly, it took 2 or 3 months to get a usable KitKat build from Slim. (the first ones to do it, I recall.) We'd be lucky to see it by the new year, in my opinion.
Thank you for the info.
So they take the Nexus sources and then build it for our devices and then figure out how to add drivers for our hardware, etc?
Thank you for the timeline. I'm hoping it will be sooner, but your estimate is more realistic
I saw this in the S3 international forum:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/galaxy-s3/orig-development/rom-namelessrom-t2939673
And
http://forum.xda-developers.com/galaxy-s3/development/wip-cyanogenmod-12-t2936990
Looks like they are hard at work on lollipop for their devices. I wonder if anyone is working on it for ours yet?
philhouse said:
I saw this in the S3 international forum:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/galaxy-s3/orig-development/rom-namelessrom-t2939673
And
http://forum.xda-developers.com/galaxy-s3/development/wip-cyanogenmod-12-t2936990
Looks like they are hard at work on lollipop for their devices. I wonder if anyone is working on it for ours yet?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Im wondering the same and if anybody has taken interest in building it for the d2lte variants like the att etc..
I haven't seen anything yet in the forums, but I'm still hopeful that someone will!
Found this today. Sweeeeet:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/galaxy-s3-att/orig-development/cyanogenmod-12-t2944071
philhouse said:
Found this today. Sweeeeet:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/galaxy-s3-att/orig-development/cyanogenmod-12-t2944071
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah I been on the ROM since it was provided.
Howdy. I've spent hours pouring over threads regarding root/custom recovery/roms for v496, and have one lingering question: How specific do I have to be with regards to version number and the application of guides and methods? For instance, I see tons of stuff on v500, and would love to use them, but I have to wonder of some of the bricking being reported isn't at least partly attributable to wrong version number.
Thanks for any insight.
Definitely don't use files meant for a different model or variant unless someone specifies having tested on your variant.
The V496 isn't even the same model as the V500. The V500, V510 and VK810 are the LG G Pad 8.3 but even then we can't use each other's files.
Sometimes the same methods work with different files, such as LG KDZs and TOTs , which aren't available for all models and variants.
roirraW "edor" ehT said:
Definitely don't use files meant for a different model or variant unless someone specifies having tested on your variant.
The V496 isn't even the same model as the V500. The V500, V510 and VK810 are the LG G Pad 8.3 but even then we can't use each other's files.
Sometimes the same methods work with different files, such as LG KDZs and TOTs , which aren't available for all models and variants.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Makes sense. Thanks very much for the reply
Benchwerks said:
Makes sense. Thanks very much for the reply
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're welcome! I wish the variants did have more in common. There's always a model or variant that gets more development.