Related
Hi!
I am wondering if there is any ROM for the M8 that supports the org.simalliance.openmobileapi to get mobile NFC payment applications like "MyWallet (Telekom)" to work.
The AndroidManifest contains this entry:
<uses-library android:name="org.simalliance.openmobileapi" android:required="@bool/sim_alliance_lib_required" />
The German Telekom support told me that it is only included within the official Telekom branded firmware.
Ikarisan said:
Hi!
I am wondering if there is any ROM for the M8 that supports the org.simalliance.openmobileapi to get mobile NFC payment applications like "MyWallet (Telekom)" to work.
The AndroidManifest contains this entry:
<uses-library android:name="org.simalliance.openmobileapi" android:required="@bool/sim_alliance_lib_required" />
The German Telekom support told me that it is only included within the official Telekom branded firmware.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Later versions of CM11 and probably all versions of CM12 do have open mobile API
I have Nexus 6 with 13.02.2015 build of official CM12 and I do have this API in it
Also had API in Xperia P unofficial CM11 (from FXP)
Althoug I don't have SmartcardService.apk and SmartcardManager.apk, which I think are needed for openmobile api to work
trogper said:
Althoug I don't have SmartcardService.apk and SmartcardManager.apk, which I think are needed for openmobile api to work
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How can we know before flashing CM 12 if it includes this required services ?
You can extract DAT file and check yourself.
I use DAT extractor and ext2 file viewer
It should be in /system/app or /system/priv-app
Thanks for the answer. I'll try to take a look at it.
Do you know where (in the source code of CM 12) I have to search in order to know if the API has been added to CM 12 for my device (jfltexx) ? I discovered this morning the repository of CM source code, and it's a little bit complicated for me
I think that this link explains how to add it to the system, maybe it helps to know where to go: https://code.google.com/p/seek-for-android/wiki/BuildingTheSystem
Aquignis said:
Thanks for the answer. I'll try to take a look at it.
Do you know where (in the source code of CM 12) I have to search in order to know if the API has been added to CM 12 for my device (jfltexx) ? I discovered this morning the repository of CM source code, and it's a little bit complicated for me
I think that this link explains how to add it to the system, maybe it helps to know where to go: https://code.google.com/p/seek-for-android/wiki/BuildingTheSystem
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are many files which need to be patched for OMAPI to work.
I think the easiest way would be flash & try
I flashed CM 12.1 yesterday and I'm still unable to download this app which uses the API... I don't know if there is a solution to this. I neither know how to add it to the build, nor if someone will consider this need !
@Aquignis: I did find this site also. I wonder if there are any custom roms supporting the OMA.
"It is essential that the device supports the necessary RIL and baseband modifications to allow APDU access to the SIM card, otherwise SIM access will not work!"
All I can say is, that it is not working with CM12.1.
If I try to install an app that request the library it says: "Packagemanager Exception: Package XXXX requires unavailble shared library org.simalliance.openmobileapi; failing"
@Ikarisan: The situation is exactly the same for me. I wish I knew an interesting custom ROM which integrates this API... Maybe Host Card Emulation will be the only solution to this (when it will be available in our countries) !
Hello everybody,
I'm back on the forums after being away for some time.
In the meantime I got myself my own LG Optimus G to be able to get to effective developing for this device.
My opinion is that this device is a powerfull device with a lot of "still to be unlocked" potential.
Before I bought the LG Optimus G I used the Samsung Galaxy S Plus, which had a very active and good developers which even today still perfectly support this old device.
When that phone launched it contained Android 2.3.6, but today it supports even the Android 4.4.4 builds (unoffical).
One of the most important steps in achieving this goal was to move from the Samsung provided kernel source to the CAF (Code Aurora Forum) based kernel source.
Because I wish the LG Optimus G the same future as my old device, I would like to get busy with bringing up the CAF kernel codebase on the LG Optimus G.
This will be a big project which is why I request fellow developers which are interested in this project to please join and form a development team with a common goal.
What needs to be done is:
- Obtain official LG Optimus G (Android 4.4) kernel sourcecode from: LGE975_G_Kitkat_Android_V20a_Kernel.zip
- Obtain latest CAF Kernel codebase (chipset apq8064) from: msm-5bfc8718998bedfeea1997d83838ffd1981cbf12.tar.gz (Last modification date: 30-06-2014)
- Extract added LGE Specific code and drivers from the official LG kernel source.
- Set-up a team Github with the clean CAF codebase, which all the driver and LG specific code will be added to.
If you're interested in helping with this project please contact me or leave a message over here.
Please no spamming etc.
Greetings PsychoGame
Hello everybody,
A little status update:
At this moment a 2-man team has been formed.
We have a team Github set-up for the development process this team will have.
The github link is: https://github.com/OptimusG-Dev-Team
If you are interested in giving us a helping hand with this project you're more than welcome.
Leave a message in this forum thread or contact me through a PM.
Experience with linux and also with the kernel is of course important.
Greetings PsychoGame
Bravo. Im hopeless in terms of what ever you code ninjas do, just wanted to let you know that i and most likely all in LGOG community greatly value this project. If you haven't already, perhaps PM some kernel devs as this would help in project gaining momentum and improved outcomes.
Happy to see that you're back psycho. Very brilliant idea. I hereby tag some devs to attract their attention. @faust93 @Loller79 , @jollaman999 , @Kevinjoa , @ThatKawaiiGuy , @xboxfanj , @JustinXu , @houstonn
Hey, I don't know much about kernel stuff, I'm learning Java atm so might be able to give tips. Not a lot though.
I don't have the Optimus G anymore (haven't since March), so I won't be able to do a ton, but I can help solve issues if/when needed.
akahroba said:
Happy to see that you're back psycho. Very brilliant idea. I hereby tag some devs to attract their attention. @Loller79 , @jollaman999 , @Kevinjoa , @ThatKawaiiGuy , @xboxfanj
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't have kernel knowledge that much... I just referenced other dev's kernel sources and fix it to my style.
But thanks for mention to me.
It'll take some time, but I'm sure we get there.
Thank you for tagging some other devs inside this thread so it raises more awareness.
Everybody is welcome to join this project, for example clone the repositories, making changes and contribute.
That's exactly what opensource is all about.
And of course if you're interested in joining the team just send me a PM and I'll bring you up to speed on the progress/process and give you the needed information.
At this moment I'm also in contact with a official LG Developer which hopefully can provide me with some information that will help this porting process as well.
Greetings PsychoGame
jollaman999 said:
I don't have kernel knowledge that much... I just referenced other dev's kernel sources and fix it to my style.
But thanks for mention to me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What about @houstonn ? Also I don't have any knowledge about this sort of thing really but I'll ask some other debs around to see if they want to join.
Sent from my LG-E975 using XDA Free mobile app
Generally, if you look at the branch of the libEGL_adreno file (using strings or hexedit), you can figure out what tag the OEM used (or branch) and then plop their source over that, then git pull the latest branch on top and fix any conflicts.
xboxfanj said:
Generally, if you look at the branch of the libEGL_adreno file (using strings or hexedit), you can figure out what tag the OEM used (or branch) and then plop their source over that, then git pull the latest branch on top and fix any conflicts.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the information xboxfanj . I never noticed the branch information inside the LibEGL_adreno files.
This also helps a lot with the extraction of the LGE added code as the branch is now as close to the LG used sources.
This keeps the extracted LGE patches as clean as possble to almost only include the LGE added stuff.
PsychoGame said:
Thanks for the information xboxfanj . I never noticed the branch information inside the LibEGL_adreno files.
This also helps a lot with the extraction of the LGE added code as the branch is now as close to the LG used sources.
This keeps the extracted LGE patches as clean as possble to almost only include the LGE added stuff.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No problem. Let me know if you need help. Obviously, I can't test anything, but I should be able to help you get things building.
Oh, i noticed this thread just now.
I can help but i don't have much free time these months.
The idea is interesting from what i've seen, if you want another hand contact me via pm
Loller79 said:
Oh, i noticed this thread just now.
I can help but i don't have much free time these months.
The idea is interesting from what i've seen, if you want another hand contact me via pm
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sent a PM to you xda account
Today we've updated the proj-kernel repository with fully patched kernel sourcecode.
With a few small 'hacks' we are able to build the j1vd-perf_defconfig to the end.
What remains is getting the updated kernel to boot on the Optimus G boards.
At least the project is moving forward.
Just wanted to give everybody a update on the progress we're making.
Greetings PsychoGame
Here I'm back with some great news for everybody.
Today the kernel which was built using our sourcecode has succesfully booted on stock KK rom from LG.
The next steps we'll be taking will be getting the kernel to work with CM11 as well.
This way I hope we will have a perfectly stable and up-to-date kernel for the Optimus G which will work for Stock as well as CM based roms.
Greetings PsychoGame
PsychoGame said:
Here I'm back with some great news for everybody.
Today the kernel which was built using our sourcecode has succesfully booted on stock KK rom from LG.
The next steps we'll be taking will be getting the kernel to work with CM11 as well.
This way I hope we will have a perfectly stable and up-to-date kernel for the Optimus G which will work for Stock as well as CM based roms.
Greetings PsychoGame
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
very nice job mate. I think in this step @faust93 can help a lot.
Is this kernel work specific to E975, or will it be compatible with for example Sprint variant LS970?
dwielunski said:
Is this kernel work specific to E975, or will it be compatible with for example Sprint variant LS970?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
At the moment it is based off E975 sources so it won't work on ls970 and similar.
Running it on my phone now and it works flawlessly.
Please thank a lot the team that made this possible and xboxfanj who helped with the project.
What's up guys? Is there anything we can help with? any test version or something?
del
zenfone 5
When TWRP 3.0 for zenfone 5 release?thanks
@quanganh2627 can you port it?
abw_bw said:
@quanganh2627 can you port it?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It will work on Zenfone 5 too.
But it is laggy on both phones due to theme. This TWRP 3.0.0 build was compield by umerov1999 from 4PDA.
Link?
my build recovery based cm-13.0 source , support ota update i think
- CM-13.0 Recovery
- TWRP 3.0 M1 Recovery
you can use it https://www.androidfilehost.com/?w=files&flid=52032
X AnwarMov said:
my build recovery based cm-13.0 source , support ota update i think
- CM-13.0 Recovery
- TWRP 3.0 M1 Recovery
you can use it https://www.androidfilehost.com/?w=files&flid=52032
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hello @X AnwarMov!
First I would like to clarify that until this moment, I couldn't have done this, as you hadn't published any binary from your releases, but now, you must follow the Open Source Licenses.
If you don't know, the TWRP recovery is published in GPL licenses, the same for the Linux kernel.
As also the recovery is dependent from a kernel, you should know that you need to share your entire sources that you used to build the recovery (including the kernel, necessary for the recovery), and also, according to XDA Rules, your sources must:
Successfully build and produce a valid output file, which is the same format as provided in the binary
Contain all source code, interface definition files, scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable (it is not required to include the actual compiler/toolchain, but sufficient information should be made available to obtain the SAME configuration, including compiler flags, as used to build the binary version as released)
So, you need to share your sources, otherwise you'll be breaking an Open Source License and we can contact the distributor to get a lawyer to get in touch with you. Also, XDA may take their providences.
Thanks.
If you need, here are some useful links:
XDA-Developers and the GPL
GNU General Public License v3 (GPL-3) Explained in Plain English
The GNU General Public License v3
tank0412 said:
It will work on Zenfone 5 too.
But it is laggy on both phones due to theme. This TWRP 3.0.0 build was compield by umerov1999 from 4PDA.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think this http://forum.xda-developers.com/android/themes/theme-twrp-3-0-0-0-materialised-dark-t3326070 should help
dgadelha said:
Hello @X AnwarMov!
First I would like to clarify that until this moment, I couldn't have done this, as you hadn't published any binary from your releases, but now, you must follow the Open Source Licenses.
If you don't know, the TWRP recovery is published in GPL licenses, the same for the Linux kernel.
As also the recovery is dependent from a kernel, you should know that you need to share your entire sources that you used to build the recovery (including the kernel, necessary for the recovery), and also, according to XDA Rules, your sources must:
Successfully build and produce a valid output file, which is the same format as provided in the binary
Contain all source code, interface definition files, scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable (it is not required to include the actual compiler/toolchain, but sufficient information should be made available to obtain the SAME configuration, including compiler flags, as used to build the binary version as released)
So, you need to share your sources, otherwise you'll be breaking an Open Source License and we can contact the distributor to get a lawyer to get in touch with you. Also, XDA may take their providences.
Thanks.
If you need, here are some useful links:
XDA-Developers and the GPL
GNU General Public License v3 (GPL-3) Explained in Plain English
The GNU General Public License v3
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I disagree.
Linux Kernel (which is present in every running Android ROM in some shape or form) is licensed under the GPL (version 2).
And kernel sources was shared. (he used this sources to build TWRP kernel)
So device tree is licenced under Apache license. So your statement is not correct. You have all sources. You can build it by yourself.
tank0412 said:
I disagree.
Linux Kernel (which is present in every running Android ROM in some shape or form) is licensed under the GPL (version 2).
And kernel sources was shared. (he used this sources to build TWRP kernel)
So device tree is licenced under Apache license. So your statement is not correct. You have all sources. You can build it by yourself.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Have you noted the line
Contain all source code, interface definition files, scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable (it is not required to include the actual compiler/toolchain, but sufficient information should be made available to obtain the SAME configuration, including compiler flags, as used to build the binary version as released)?
The source files are partially shared, plus he hasn't added any references to the source code he has used.
dgadelha said:
Have you noted the line
Contain all source code, interface definition files, scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable (it is not required to include the actual compiler/toolchain, but sufficient information should be made available to obtain the SAME configuration, including compiler flags, as used to build the binary version as released)?
The source files are partially shared, plus he hasn't added any references to the source code he has used.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Again.
It is true for GPL license only.
But device tree is under Apache license.
tank0412 said:
Again.
It is true for GPL license only.
But device tree is under Apache license.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I partially agree.
Device files aren't necessary, but the reference to the used kernel source is.
tank0412 said:
Again.
It is true for GPL license only.
But device tree is under Apache license.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He's right. The whole point of open source is to share all the sources and references so that others can verify it and work on it. Forget about the license. It's the best thing to do.
eragon21 said:
He's right. The whole point of open source is to share all the sources and references so that others can verify it and work on it. Forget about the license. It's the best thing to do.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lets imagine situation that MM device tree by X Anwar is shared but CM13 build is not shared.
Other people can build Marshmallow rom and push it to public. So their will get all credits. And X Anwar this way will got nothing.
So i am totally agree that he does not share sources. If i were him, i share nothing too.
tank0412 said:
Lets imagine situation that MM device tree by X Anwar is shared but CM13 build is not shared.
Other people can build Marshmallow rom and push it to public. So their will get all credits. And X Anwar this way will got nothing.
So i am totally agree that he does not share sources. If i were him, i share nothing too.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
XDA rules state that if someone shared their work and others work on it, they must give proper credits. If X Anwar thinks that others copied it, he can report it to the mods and take it down.
If Quanganh, shakalaca, knone all thought like that, there won't be any ROMs now.
eragon21 said:
XDA rules state that if someone shared their work and others work on it, they must give proper credits. If X Anwar thinks that others copied it, he can report it to the mods and take it down.
If Quanganh, shakalaca, knone all thought like that, there won't be any ROMs now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You did not understand me.
All of this devs published device tree AFTER rom publishing.
Nobody shared BEFORE rom publishing.
So X Anway should share his device tree AFTER CM13 publishing. An it will be OK.
And other people can use it without any problems.
eragon21 said:
XDA rules state that if someone shared their work and others work on it, they must give proper credits. If X Anwar thinks that others copied it, he can report it to the mods and take it down.
If Quanganh, shakalaca, knone all thought like that, there won't be any ROMs now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed.
Plus this is a community, we are supposed to work together and help each other.
tank0412 said:
You did not understand me.
All of this devs published device tree AFTER rom publishing.
Nobody shared BEFORE rom publishing.
So X Anway should share his device tree AFTER CM13 publishing. An it will be OK.
And other people can use it without any problems.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But I thought his ROM is bootable. Even if he didn't fix all his bugs, he could share his work so that others can help him right? Everyone, including you shared it. And, I believe many devs helped you fix some important bugs.
I know you're right. But sharing his work will benefit the community as well as him.
eragon21 said:
But I thought his ROM is bootable. Even if he didn't fix all his bugs, he could share his work so that others can help him right? Everyone, including you shared it. And, I believe many devs helped you fix some important bugs.
I know you're right. But sharing his work will benefit the community as well as him.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is no senior developer who can help him. There are a Junior and Middle developers.
Note: Senior developer is a developer who first create bootable rom like Knone or Tran Huu Tin
tank0412 said:
There is no senior developer who can help him. There are a Junior and Middle developers.
Note: Senior developer is a developer who first create bootable rom like Knone or Tran Huu Tin
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
X Anwar already mentioned a issue (the only issue he mentioned), no Internal Storage, I know a fix, I tried to contact him saying about it but I got no answer.
And isn't all about being a Senior Developer, anybody can easily build a ROM nowadays (and I made the CM build a lot easier) and analyze how to fix the bugs. But as I said, this is a community, if we work together, we can make it.
Hello,
As some people heard, i really try to get Android Wear 2.0 for our beloved SmartWatch 3.
And it's possible, sources, device trees, all exist to build a working own compiled Android Wear 2.0.
So this thread tells about the current process of the port
PROGRESS
Code:
Repo synced
First build finished (not buildable yet due no blobs included
GAPPS Porting in progress
Fixed to 99% the device tree
Updating Blobs to M1D64T in progress
Using own Device tree
SOURCES
Device Tree for tetra:
https://github.com/Sony-SmartWatch-3-OSS/android_device_tree_tetra_eng_prerelease
Device Kernel for tetra (unmodified):
https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/bcm/+/android-wear-6.0.1_r0.99
(we can use MM kernel on Nougat too, maybe some patches needed but that's okay)
Prebuilts/Blobs for tetra:
https://github.com/Sony-SmartWatch-3-OSS/vendor_prebuilts_tetra
For Discussions go to this thread please: https://forum.xda-developers.com/smartwatch-3/general/companion-thread-android-wear-2-0-t3565693
If you want to help me on this project, write to me via telegram: https://t.me/PDesire
I need that so much any ETA ?
By the way keep up the good work !
Nice to see someone is working on this :victory:
Sent from my Sony Xperia Z5 using XDA Labs
Thanks for your job.
Enviado desde mi Redmi Note 3 mediante Tapatalk
great!!! thanks
Dear PDesire,,
My support can be only moral..... :crying:
And I hoping good news soon from you
Thx again for your great hard work :good:
thankx you great hard work and good luck my friend
I checked out your device tree. It looks like it's based off an Open Devices tree. I don't think we need the following lines
Code:
include device/sony/common-headers/KernelHeaders.mk
-include device/sony/common-kernel/KernelConfig.mk
in BoardConfig.mk.
Also, what about the HALs? Asteroid OS used the system.img from a stock build, but we will need to build from source. I do not think it is open source, as it is not available on google git servers.
EDIT: I do not think building from source will work. This is what I found the Google Android building group:
Certain components of Android (and therefore Wear) come from third parties and have licenses which require the source code to be made available (e.g. the Linux kernel). The components made available via the AOSP repositories for releases like Wear are, afaik, the components which have that type of license.
Wear is a release which has taken the same path as Honeycomb. I can understand that for open source fans and people looking to tinker with a working system it’s somewhat disappointing to see, but those are the choices Google has made.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Looks like the only way to go forward is to port it from a pre-compiled version for another watch, like they did for the Galaxy Gear devices.
EDIT 2: Refer:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!s...nce/android-building/R0r9BBn4M3g/-KexIWTCDwAJ
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!s...nce/android-building/vx0Hcy88Ofs/USxAUaKVAwAJ
These sources are incomplete and only include GPL licensed projects. It is not the complete source, just like google releases preview sources for AOSP preview builds (M, N etc). I suggest you not waste your quota in downloading the source.
drakonizer said:
I checked out your device tree. It looks like it's based off an Open Devices tree. I don't think we need the following lines
Code:
include device/sony/common-headers/KernelHeaders.mk
-include device/sony/common-kernel/KernelConfig.mk
in BoardConfig.mk.
Also, what about the HALs? Asteroid OS used the system.img from a stock build, but we will need to build from source. I do not think it is open source, as it is not available on google git servers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah I've seen these, and already fixed. Patch comes soon.
Things for WLAN and BT for example are on google repo too and if a library or something is missing we can use it from M1D64T
EDIT: I do not think building from source will work. This is what I found the Google Android building group:
Looks like the only way to go forward is to port it from a pre-compiled version for another watch, like they did for the Galaxy Gear devices.
EDIT 2: Refer:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!s...nce/android-building/R0r9BBn4M3g/-KexIWTCDwAJ
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!s...nce/android-building/vx0Hcy88Ofs/USxAUaKVAwAJ
These sources are incomplete and only include GPL licensed projects. It is not the complete source, just like google releases preview sources for AOSP preview builds (M, N etc). I suggest you not waste your quota in downloading the source.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lel then I can't understand why the build is working xD at least I am building in time and already 14% finished
I know some libs we have to grab from the Marshmallow FW but that shouldn't be a big deal
At least we also need some things from Preview 2 so we can get our AW 2.0 Preview 2 working
So I try my best to grab much from source and if required also from FW, but all in all its possible for our SmartWatch 3 to get Android Wear 2.0
Your PDesire
but there's one thing i don't understand ... why r u using preview 2 instead of a feature complete newer version or the final version?
xpatze85x said:
but there's one thing i don't understand ... why r u using preview 2 instead of a feature complete newer version or the final version?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because there aren't any sources of the final version.
@PDesire :
You're the man...keep up a good work ???
Hey @PDesire , any news? I'm sooooo hyped!!!
Thank bro I hope
Thanks for this!
So current status is:
Code:
Repo synced
First Test build stopped to fix things on device tree
Expected in future:
Code:
Blobs dump
Fully fixed Device tree
Creating vendor for tetra
Adding overlays for framework to device tree
Some mix with armv7-a-neon generic
Gapps Dump
Expected in far future:
Code:
Creating an OSS project for tetra (like sonyxperiadev but for tetra)
So guys I will do more tomorrow as I am awake already from Friday 7AM - 3AM Saturday (right now GMT +1) and working on it and I need my sleep xD
So Goodnight guys and I can confirm our dream of Android Wear 2.0 for SmartWatch 3 comes nearer
Your PDesire
PDesire said:
So Goodnight guys and I can confirm our dream of Android Wear 2.0 for SmartWatch 3 comes nearer
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And I can confirm my donation is coming when a working build is ready, and I suppose others are coming, isn't it guys? ???
Is it possible that this could give us Android pay or will that only work with official AW2?
Sent from my SM-G920F using XDA-Developers Legacy app
Neo Cortex said:
Is it possible that this could give us Android pay or will that only work with official AW2?
Sent from my SM-G920F using XDA-Developers Legacy app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No. That'll only work on an official firmware, unfortunately...
Thank you very much, hope you will finish it without problems~!
Heya, I just got my hands on a J200H, and I get to keep it for a while.
As I was using it, I thought if there is any lineageos for it, and there is not.
Now it would be great if you guys point me where I can find Device tree, Kernel source, Vendor blobs for this device, so that I could start working on this device and add the repo to official lineageos server for build ( provided all things goes smoothly nearly one month is enough )
Also I saw some varients of this device, it would be great if you could add device models (the codes- like J200H) and their source codes too, I could try merging them into a universal source code and patch as universal makes less problem.
Thanks In advance! And any update will be posted here.
I doubt if the things mentioned are available.
But if the are really willing to do this than this can be useful .
Have a look a this
https://web.archive.org/web/20161224192644/https://wiki.cyanogenmod.org/w/Doc:_porting_intro
and this
https://forum.xda-developers.com/an...ow-to-create-device-tree-android-rom-t3498355
ad. said:
I doubt if the things mentioned are available.
But if the are really willing to do this than this can be useful .
Have a look a this
https://web.archive.org/web/20161224192644/https://wiki.cyanogenmod.org/w/Doc:_porting_intro
and this
https://forum.xda-developers.com/an...ow-to-create-device-tree-android-rom-t3498355
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
got em on samsungs website, but holy ****e their bandwidth....they are killing me.....
Just look at these download speed.... god no...
https://ibb.co/gnDQLQ
uts58 said:
got em on samsungs website
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't know but I guess they are just kernel source .
Once downloaded you can know what is that actually.
@uts58 Are you still working on it????