Close this thread please, pm me if you want a build
Feature updates
I will be adding new features, this list will be updated per release.
GPU Boost
Chill governor (prevent overheating, since it's summer where I am)
Maple I/O sched default
High brightness mode
I'll peruse the features guide and see what else isn't in there
Bug Reporting
If you have any problems with the kernel flashing (not the kernel itself) please reply with your OS version, I will look into what is causing the bug and should have a patch
In the features list it says Maple is set to default, but when I went to look I was CFQ did I do something wrong or has this not been implemented yet ? Also BigChill isn't a choice for a governor, that's a future update correct ?
Phalanx7621 said:
In the features list it says Maple is set to default, but when I went to look I was CFQ did I do something wrong or has this not been implemented yet ? Also BigChill isn't a choice for a governor, that's a future update correct ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I put the wrong thing in the defconfig so maple isn't default, chill is not implemented yet, so you're correct
Trying this out on the latest crDroid and Magisk 16.6. So far, nothing evidently is going wrong. I remember a couple of crDroid releases ago crDroid came with the TitanX kernel and I remember that one working really well then, and this King Kernel seems to be an evolution of the TitanX kernel.
Does this kernel implement the same eas as in this kernel-https://forum.xda-developers.com/pixel-xl/development/kernel-oreo-8-0-exnoshadez-eas-stable-t3709035
Also XDA had an article recently on why the eas implementation makes the pixel so fast......just curious is all.....p.s. the kernel is running great on bootleggers ROM so far and thanks
dangambino said:
Does this kernel implement the same eas as in this kernel-https://forum.xda-developers.com/pixel-xl/development/kernel-oreo-8-0-exnoshadez-eas-stable-t3709035
Also XDA had an article recently on why the eas implementation makes the pixel so fast......just curious is all.....p.s. the kernel is running great on bootleggers ROM so far and thanks
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, this one is built by shagbag913
UPDATE: v1.3 released, creating beta folder for all betas. Check the changelog for more details
Download: https://drive.google.com/open?id=132XQEW9MUI82esemK6nnCBfQgey0kXKX
kingbri said:
No, this one is built by shagbag913
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
um... no. that's obviously not correct - i'm the dev.
nine7nine said:
um... no. that's obviously not correct - i'm the dev.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Umm. What does this mean? Lol
stebomurkn420 said:
Umm. What does this mean? Lol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It means that kingri (by mistake, obviously) is attributing a year worth of my own kernel development (look below at my signature) to someone else (Shag), so i'm clarifying who the dev actually is; me....
my remark was a bit cheeky, intended for kingbri (as we've PM's back n forth on occasions. he knows i'm the dev).
nine7nine said:
It means that kingri (by mistake, obviously) is attributing a year worth of my own kernel development (look below at my signature) to someone else (Shag), so i'm clarifying who the dev actually is; me....
my remark was a bit cheeky, intended for kingbri (as we've PM's back n forth on occasions. he knows i'm the dev).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Delete then
stebomurkn420 said:
I see. Well thank you for YOUR work. Kingbri, give this man some credit in the OP!?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
no. no. you're misunderstanding... read here;
dangambino said:
Does this kernel implement the same eas as in this kernel-https://forum.xda-developers.com/pixel-xl/development/kernel-oreo-8-0-exnoshadez-eas-stable-t3709035
Also XDA had an article recently on why the eas implementation makes the pixel so fast......just curious is all.....p.s. the kernel is running great on bootleggers ROM so far and thanks
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
this is my kernel, dangambino is asking kingbri about it... to which kingbri replies;
kingbri said:
No, this one is built by shagbag913
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
but that's wrong. i'm the dev of the kernel in question; exns-eas... which he knows, but said shag built it... i was being cheeky and clarifying that detail ~ not asking him for credit of any kind or anything like that. (I have nothing to do with his kernel).
nine7nine said:
no. no. you're misunderstanding... read here;
this is my kernel, dangambino is asking kingbri about it... to which kingbri replies;
but that's wrong. i'm the dev of the kernel in question; exns-eas... which he knows, but said shag built it... i was being cheeky and clarifying that detail ~ not asking him for credit of any kind or anything like that. (I have nothing to do with his kernel).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No I don't think you understood the original question. And then kingbri answered it wrong. The question was "does this kernel implement the same EAS as (exnoshades kernel), the answer would be Yes. I think kingbri meant that shag implemented EAS on kingkernel. Which means "No, shag built this one".
Just to be clear to everybody, I didn't implement (I'm inexperienced when it comes to kernels) anything. I just simply cherry-picked all of the commits from the EAS-project and bri based his kernel on the branch I made with all of those commits included
nine7nine said:
um... no. that's obviously not correct - i'm the dev.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I completely forgot that this was your development since I used shag's branch that he allowed me to use as a kernel base, my bad for not crediting you nine, but I do promote off topic discussion, so don't clean this thread mods
kingbri said:
No, this one is built by shagbag913
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
kingbri said:
I completely forgot that this was your development since I used shag's branch that he allowed me to use as a kernel base, my bad for not crediting you nine, but I do promote off topic discussion, so don't clean this thread mods
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
all good, dude. I didn't care to begin with! ? just clarified... (and tbh, I wanted to follow your thread, so I commented!)...
but yeah, I thought this looked like shag's tree... much like you and I - shag and I pm/chat sometimes too... pretty sure I pointed EAS Project to him, iirc... Great work that RenderBroken and Joshous are doing...
that's sweet that you've got it up and working though. how has your kernel been working so far?
nine7nine said:
all good, dude. I didn't care to begin with! ? just clarified... (and tbh, I wanted to follow your thread, so I commented!)...
but yeah, I thought this looked like shag's tree... much like you and I - shag and I pm/chat sometimes too... pretty sure I pointed EAS Project to him, iirc... Great work that RenderBroken and Joshous are doing...
that's sweet that you've got it up and working though. how has your kernel been working so far?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes it has, I have been having some problems with the ramdisk defaults and I can't seem to fix them, will pm you when osx stops being stupid and installing updates
kingbri said:
Yes it has, I have been having some problems with the ramdisk defaults and I can't seem to fix them, will pm you when osx stops being stupid and installing updates
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sure, I should be around.
gonna hack/work on some driver code shortly, so I'll be in front of my computer...
Related
Just thought some might be interested in this (so sue me, i had to ask it):
http://nookdeveloper.zendesk.com/en...-updated-1-2-source-code?page=1#post_20056491
We will be publishing the updated source in the coming weeks. Thanks for your patience.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It will be interesting to see what their new source brings, and what we can use from it. Here is hoping that it is sooner rather than later...
EDIT: Well, i am happy to say it didn't take long.. have at it here: http://images.barnesandnoble.com/PResources/download/Nook/source-code/nookcolor-source-code.zip
Awesome news! The faster we can get dalingrin the updated kernel source the better!
Does complying with the gpl allow for a reasonable delay? Because once you get into grey areas like that, what's reasonable? 2 weeks? 3 months?
Obviously they have the source already, so I don't understand when companies release it some time afterwards.
Aye. I hate the "weeks" portion.. given that its out, i dont think its unfair to demand it now. As it is though, i think the GPL gives 60 days (??) for them to publish the code though, so it may be a while.
Not sure if I don't understand the complexities or everything all the devs here do, but what are the possibilities of the deeper-blue Honeycomb ROM being updated to use a modified version of the 2.2 Nook Color kernel instead of the current 2.1 Nook Color kernel? I assume this would help in getting some items like Flash video etc working properly in the Honeycomb ROM.
Or is the goal still to wait for whenever the 3.0 honeycomb full source is released? Just thinking out loud. Interested to see what others have to say.
ArmitageID said:
Not sure if I don't understand the complexities or everything all the devs here do, but what are the possibilities of the deeper-blue Honeycomb ROM being updated to use a modified version of the 2.2 Nook Color kernel instead of the current 2.1 Nook Color kernel? I assume this would help in getting some items like Flash video etc working properly in the Honeycomb ROM.
Or is the goal still to wait for whenever the 3.0 honeycomb full source is released? Just thinking out loud. Interested to see what others have to say.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There isn't much an updated kernel will do to help the Honeycomb SDK.
I don't see any schedules mentioned in the GPL http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html.
bigbob23 said:
I don't see any schedules mentioned in the GPL http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They will do whatever they want until someone sues. What if we lost?
bigbob23 said:
I don't see any schedules mentioned in the GPL http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I may have been wrong (and will happily say its not the first time); but i did do some reading and found this: http://gplv3.fsf.org/wiki/index.php/User:ashawley/Making_copyleft_work_with_implied_compliance
Not sure if it is totally relevant though..
Source Code
I got this:
Dear Brandon Bennett,
Thank you for your inquiry.
Barnes and Noble will post the updated source code in the near future.
There is still no specific date yet. The link will be posted under terms
of service on the website.
Please accept our sincere apologies for any inconvenience this may have
caused and we look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Ella
Customer Service Representative - Digital Support
Barnes & Noble
http://www.bn.com/
Visit our NOOK Support site for the latest updates and downloads at:
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/nook/support/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hopefully the source will help dalingrin, verygreen and fattire cut through the current mysteries with the .32 development kernel for CM7.
Seems like a lot of progress was made without B&N's help (smart developers), but even if only a few optimized drivers can be poached that is better than nothing.
nemith said:
I got this:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the info. The nook dev board had another update:
Well, if history is a guide, we released source of 1.0 about 2-3 weeks after launch...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As i replied, the anxious part of me does not understand any delay really, other than trying to keep the source code away from us "hackers" for as long as possible. The code is obviously in use, so why not release it?
Ah well..
There are probably lawyers hemming and hawing over them releasing it. They probably are trying to ensure that they haven't violated some other patent/copyright in their code which they actually might get sued over.
chadamir said:
There are probably lawyers hemming and hawing over them releasing it. They probably are trying to ensure that they haven't violated some other patent/copyright in their code which they actually might get sued over.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Perhaps, but the code is already shipping - its not to say an update can't get pushed out, but just because we can't see the source, doesn't mean current violations are excused.
As it is, the linux kernel is GPL; they can't not release it. So again, i am still frustrated at the hold up...
Probably just the usual corporate speed. They don't like to publish anything before they have to, if only for liability and exposure. Probably the last thing on the rollout list, too.
poofyhairguy said:
Hopefully the source will help dalingrin, verygreen and fattire cut through the current mysteries with the .32 development kernel for CM7.
Seems like a lot of progress was made without B&N's help (smart developers), but even if only a few optimized drivers can be poached that is better than nothing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We are actually very close to having a good .32 kernel already. Some of us have been using .32 full time I think. Verygreen did most of the work on the port. He scrapped my .32 work and started over.
We only need a few updated drivers from them and we'll be good. So I expect a prompt release once we have B&N source.
dalingrin said:
We are actually very close to having a good .32 kernel already. Some of us have been using .32 full time I think. Verygreen did most of the work on the port. He scrapped my .32 work and started over.
We only need a few updated drivers from them and we'll be good. So I expect a prompt release once we have B&N source.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Rock on good sir.. That sounds most exciting indeed!
Perhaps a silly question, but to the end user- what will the difference be between the current and .32 kernel? Faster/better/stronger/able to make cappuccinos?
dalingrin said:
We are actually very close to having a good .32 kernel already. Some of us have been using .32 full time I think. Verygreen did most of the work on the port. He scrapped my .32 work and started over.
We only need a few updated drivers from them and we'll be good. So I expect a prompt release once we have B&N source.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was actually using it for a while. Just needed more clock/governor steppings and the weird "broken SD" and battery fixed, as you already know. It is flying though.
Edit: forgot about sound
Nburnes said:
I was actually using it for a while. Just needed more clock/governor steppings and the weird "broken SD" and battery fixed, as you already know. It is flying though.
Edit: forgot about sound
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The clock/governor issue is because only the performance governor is compiled into the kernel right now. The broken SD warning is mostly fixed and I believe the same for the battery.
We'll take Supra Rom for example.
If it LOOKS like AOSP, the apps WORK like AOSP, why isn't it considered AOSP?
Is there something that MAKES a Rom AOSP specifically?
Android Open Source Project. When you see AOSP it means its as basic as it gets.
Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk
an AOSP ROM is compiled from the sources provided by the Android project.
SupraROM is still a Sense-based ROM, just with a bunch of AOSP stuff thrown in
Yes, my ROM isn't technically AOSP because it wasn't built directly from Google's source with ONLY Google programming. True AOSP has zero Sense in it, whereas mine was just heavily modified to look as much like AOSP as I could possibly make it. The new ROM in my sig however, Pulse, is true AOSP because it has no influence from HTC's devs. No apps from them, no framework from them, nothing. Just straight Android.
empiire said:
my ROM isn't technically AOSP because it wasn't built directly from Google's source .... The new ROM in my sig however, Pulse, is true AOSP....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Um, Pulse was not built from Google's source. If it was, where is your modified source code? Do you have a Github link?
rstuckmaier said:
Um, Pulse was not built from Google's source. If it was, where is your modified source code? Do you have a Github link?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I never said it was built from Google's source.
Okay, thank you everyone.
That's exactly what I thought.. but I just wanted to make sure whether there's something specific that sets them apart.
And Empiire, to be completely honest.. I LOOOOOVE SupraRom, just for that reason alone (that it's merged between the two). I hope you never stop working on it. =]
novanosis85 said:
Android Open Source Project. When you see AOSP it means its as basic as it gets.
Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
it seemed so sad to have all these posts about aosp but nobody provided a link to the actual repository where all official android developer publically released code and comments are kept!
for those interested and for the record - below is the link for the official aosp code in all its glory!!
http://android.git.kernel.org/
arozer said:
Okay, thank you everyone.
That's exactly what I thought.. but I just wanted to make sure whether there's something specific that sets them apart.
And Empiire, to be completely honest.. I LOOOOOVE SupraRom, just for that reason alone (that it's merged between the two). I hope you never stop working on it. =]
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well thank you, I was originally planning on leaving the thread to die but I've had plenty of PMs asking to keep development going, so I guess I will.
empiire said:
Well thank you, I was originally planning on leaving the thread to die but I've had plenty of PMs asking to keep development going, so I guess I will.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You should at least keep up on it until you get sound working on Pulse. Seriously, if we had an AOSP Rom with sound working I would be rockin it. I have to be able to make and receive calls, or I would be all over it. From what I understand, you can't hear the person you are calling. I'm going to continue to use Supra AOSP version until we get a working AOSP build with sound.
empiire said:
I never said it was built from Google's source.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You implied it. I quoted it. You defined an AOSP ROM as being one built from source then claimed Pulse was "true AOSP."
To the OP: their ROMs currently are "AOSP based" at best. They are not compiling these ROMs from source. They are "porting" them, in a sense.
rstuckmaier said:
You implied it. I quoted it. You defined an AOSP ROM as being one built from source then claimed Pulse was "true AOSP."
To the OP: their ROMs currently are "AOSP based" at best. They are not compiling these ROMs from source. They are "porting" them, in a sense.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Damn dude, chill. I'd check out a dictionary if I was going to be this technical about everything. Lmao.
Here is Our new forum.
XDA, the moderators and the powers that be.... have been wrestling with trying to differentiate the Difference between the Code-writing Development and the Quasi-developers that use rom cooking tools or are just porting roms.
To that end we will be going through the development threads in the next couple of weeks and moving the appropriate threads that meet the original code requirement to be placed in this new forum.
Please bear in mind that this is a "Work in Progress" and will take a bit of time to hone and perfect what goes where.
Also, please understand that this does not mean that some developers are on some special pedestal. That is not the case.
I will use an analogy to explain:
A music composer writes an original piece of music. The music composition may be awesome... but his performance of it, may not.
Such often is the case in developers..... often someone comes up with a awesome idea or new code application, but it often ends up being perfected by the use of others putting their creative spin on it.
That is the beauty of The Android Platform and ....XDA provides a fertile field for all to share ideas and collectively improve our experience.
Additionally, we need to provide and track the proper credit to the original code writing Developer and better comply with the GPL requirements of Android......
I hope this clarifys the potential questions
Thanks from the Moderators
~~~ (oka1)~~~
I though this forum is for all the Samsung original/stock roms
TL;DR version.
Stuff you've made. Pure AOSP ROM's you've built from sauce. Or a AOKP ROM you've buildt.
"Cooked" ROMs, like taking a TouchWiz ROM and just adding some APKs etc is not original developement.
So does my Asylum ICS count as original? Since every version is built from source? And then modified to my liking?
antiochasylum said:
So does my Asylum ICS count as original? Since every version is built from source? And then modified to my liking?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
AFAIK, Asylum will be considered as a cooked ROM with AOKP/CM9 as the base
Saw this sometime back in HOX forums and liked the idea. Glad it's here in Note's forums too. If not anything, it will make the development forum a less pain to search, at least it was for me. Now I can look up to the original ROMs here, and their derivatives in the other section. Cool enough!
FIRRST!!!
Ah shoot!
Liking this idea, but it means an extra click for my daily routine, heh
This should be labelled "AOSP ROMs" and the other "TouchWizz ROMs" for better clarification.
Good to see a separate forum. Now it is well organized and less cluttered.
parthpatels007 said:
AFAIK, Asylum will be considered as a cooked ROM with AOKP/CM9 as the base
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
IMHO - any ROM or kernel built from source should be in original development.
I mean, with parth's logic, CM9 isn't original development as it uses AOSP as base...
nickshertzer said:
IMHO - any ROM or kernel built from source should be in original development.
I mean, with parth's logic, CM9 isn't original development as it uses AOSP as base...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
^lol good point there :good:
Sorry, but your development forum separation is a pain in ass for me. I don't want to open two pages instead of one to see all news about ROMs. This is really stupid and uncomfortable. I don't care who made ROM and which way it's done. I just wan't to find ROM thread, and that's all!
anonymous572 said:
Sorry, but your development forum separation is a pain in ass for me. I don't want to open two pages instead of one to see all news about ROMs.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Use your hands.
This is really stupid and uncomfortable. I don't care who made ROM and which way it's done. I just wan't to find ROM thread, and that's all!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is how it should be. If you want only COOKED ROM THREADS go to the old Development Section.
This Forum is a very good idea as I know exactly where I will be heading now.
anonymous572 said:
Sorry, but your development forum separation is a pain in ass for me. I don't want to open two pages instead of one to see all news about ROMs. This is really stupid and uncomfortable. I don't care who made ROM and which way it's done. I just wan't to find ROM thread, and that's all!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1 here, i think the developers and "porters" deserves the same credit, Developers for Develop new features and Porters to make speddy ROMs.
with this, new members can be confused (thinking that many do not read the rules and announcements)
Just my opinion...But the moderators has the decision
Cya
How do we request certain threads to be moved from Android Dev -> Original Android Dev and vice-versa? The few that have been put here appear to be a bit random...
eg. If GL_NOTECORE kernel is considered "original" dev, then why isn't the Goku kernel also here? Both of those are based off Speedmod K3-3 after all...
It is what it is. Let the mods do the job. I never lose my threads simply because I subscribe them under my favorite folders. Quite a smooth transition. I was not even aware some of the threads are moved here Now I know why there is separation in GT-I9100 sections.
darkoctavius said:
with this, new members can be confused (thinking that many do not read the rules and announcements)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
New members get confused because they do not read. The number of subforums (5 or 6) won't add much of confusion.
I'm happy with this new structure. I got a little bit tired from too many innovative ROMs with tweaks, themes, addons and - my favorite - boot animations. Even Kernels start to spread (like clones of hardore's SpeedMod).
Now I start every morning with the OAD forum looking for real changes.
Boy124 said:
Use your hands.
This is how it should be. If you want only COOKED ROM THREADS go to the old Development Section.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Couldn't agree more.
aussiebum said:
How do we request certain threads to be moved from Android Dev -> Original Android Dev and vice-versa? The few that have been put here appear to be a bit random...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you know what you do, you can report them.
eg. If GL_NOTECORE kernel is considered "original" dev, then why isn't the Goku kernel also here? Both of those are based off Speedmod K3-3 after all...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not really, GL_NOTECORE is based on Samsung source (with inspirations from hardcore and others), while Goku kernel is based specifically on SpeedMod kernel :
g.lewarne said:
Introducing my custom built kernel for ICS Touchwiz ROMs​Features:
- Built from HK ICS Opensource 1 (July 7th release)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
funky81 said:
funky81 presents Goku Kernel, a kernel based on hardcore masterpiece, SpeedMod Kernel OCS K3-3
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, both my own and Funky81's kernel (Goku) are both built from source with original development.
We are simply applying a patch that hardcore made for the original code source release which address some issues that we would have had to address anyway. there is no point in re-inventing the wheel. In my latest releases built from the newer source I am not even applying hardcores patch, just grabbing a few alterations that were made so the code compiles properly.
In fact, both of our kernels are vastly different from Hardcore's in respect to what we are trying to achieve with them. I am going for all out speed, and had to devise my own code (and follow the horrendously awful Exynos4 for developers manual from Samsung) to inject the correct overclocking PLL and register values into the code. This is not something that Hardcore, or anyone else apart from Thor (for cm9) has done with the kernel.
funky has made lots of alterations too, so neither of our kernels can really be called "speedmod clones" and to do so, without reading at the very least the OP of each thread and understanding what is being said, is a little disrespectful.
To follow another analogy along the lines of oka1's from the OP
If speedmod is building the basic car, Funky81 and myself are designing the turbo, exhaust system, air intake and tuning the ECU and packaging it all together. Both are as important as each other and both are original.
Thanks for your explainations. (out of thx for today)
just a odd idea I thought I would share
I wonder if its possible to patch a kernel on load using safestrap
I am wondering if maby we can hex-patch the DVFS table at execute to at least gain some overclocking
I read the kexec thread but the consensus there is that development is stalled waiting for a breakthrough
thoughts :fingers-crossed:
Legitsu said:
just a odd idea I thought I would share
I wonder if its possible to patch a kernel on load using safestrap
I am wondering if maby we can hex-patch the DVFS table at execute to at least gain some overclocking
I read the kexec thread but the consensus there is that development is stalled waiting for a breakthrough
thoughts :fingers-crossed:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You can overclock via module sure, hex patch prob not needed.
Surge1223 said:
You can overclock via module sure, hex patch prob not needed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hrmmm.... you talking about patching the dvfs kernel module or writing a custom module ...
if so I am surprised nobody has done that yet ..
is hex-patching from safestrap at all feasible ... it would grant you the 'keys' to all manner of "doors"
I used to fiddle with it on my cheap mk808 tv stick before we had kernel sources
I am surprised nobody has used kmodule's as a "attack vector" people seem to be chipping away and the Mountain that is kexec instead of just focusing on patching the issues we have with the stock kernel .. . a few years ago somebody was doing hex patches to implement kernel changes on the first generation of rockchip powered "tv sticks" the same logic should apply here
then again maby I have just been out of the game for way to long ....
*continues pondering*
Legitsu said:
hrmmm.... you talking about patching the dvfs kernel module or writing a custom module ...
if so I am surprised nobody has done that yet ..
is hex-patching from safestrap at all feasible ... it would grant you the 'keys' to all manner of door if it was
I used to fiddle with it on my cheap mk808 tv stick before we had kernel sources
I am surprised nobody has used kmodule's as a "attack vector" people seem to be chipping away and the Mountain that is kexec instead of just focusing on patching the issues we have with the stock kernel .. . a few years ago somebody was doing hex patches to implement kernel changes on the first generation of rockchip powered "tv sticks" the same logic should apply here
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have dabbled with this, using a custom module based on the 8660 overclock module I found source for somewhere. The reason kexec is so much more desired then fixing the current kernel is because patching the current kernel might give us more io schedulers, overclock, custom governors etc, but at the end of the day all that crap isn't worth much on the poor excuse for android ui known as touchwiz.
Idk about you but I can tell you I for sure would not want to post a thread on overclocking or modifying cpu via modules in this day and age of 'the entitled xda user'. Maybe that's why you don't see any threads.
You bring up a good point about how people don't understand the various uses kernel modules can provide including but not limited to being attack vectors (though to some degree this is being done with kexec).
Surge1223 said:
I have dabbled with this, using a custom module based on the 8660 overclock module I found source for somewhere. The reason kexec is so much more desired then fixing the current kernel is because patching the current kernel might give us more io schedulers, overclock, custom governors etc, but at the end of the day all that crap isn't worth much on the poor excuse for android ui known as touchwiz.
Idk about you but I can tell you I for sure would not want to post a thread on overclocking or modifying cpu via modules in this day and age of 'the entitled xda user'. Maybe that's why you don't see any threads.
You bring up a good point about how people don't understand the various uses kernel modules can provide including but not limited to being attack vectors (though to some degree this is being done with kexec).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ill be the first one to admit I haven't keept up on this stuff simply because the effort started outweighing the gain
it just seems to me that people are chasing clouds ... with kexec the possibility of getting it working is basically nill due to lack of debugging information so why not attack something you can debug such as a kernel module hell in theory it should be possible to add io schedulers and governors via a module hell with a properly 'crafted' module we may even get kexec(kgraft?) as a result if you could create a exploit you could use to the proper effect ..
I agree that touchwizz is utter poo and should be stabbed with white hot knives and buried under 12ft of cement but the phrase "if life gives you lemons ... make lemonade" rings to mind ...
I am sure somebody will give me the usual speech about "if you are so smart do it your self" but sometimes people just need to step back and look at it another way .. + I am fighting insomnia and am on my third shot of jack ...
wow did I really write all that jesus ... no more jack for me at 12 am...
Legitsu said:
wow did I really write all that jesus ... no more jack for me at 12 am...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol. At least your question is a good topic of debate. Most questions and posts in our forum are boring to me but this isn't, so there's that I guess.
Surge1223 said:
Lol. At least your question is a good topic of debate. Most questions and posts in our forum are boring to me but this isn't, so there's that I guess.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
realistically you probably could't alter to much but adding overclocking a variety of minor tweaks could be done in hex
on a personal note I would be content with figuring out how to get some overclocking/undervolting done
Legitsu said:
realistically you probably could't alter to much but adding overclocking a variety of minor tweaks could be done in hex
on a personal note I would be content with figuring out how to get some overclocking/undervolting done
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
When you reply to me, you realize you are actually continuing your thoughts and not actually replying to me right?
Surge1223 said:
When you reply to me, you realize you are actually continuing your thoughts and not actually replying to me right?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol I am just rambling feel free to ignore me lol
board software here is a bit odd
*deleted tired*
Today XDA's Aamir Siddiqui posted an Article on how Poco, even though they promised to do so, still haven't released the Kernel Source for our Poco X3 yet.
So far the Developers are doing an amazing Job in providing us Users with already very well working Custom ROM Options.
But, of course, complete sources, as promised, would be very welcome.
A couple of guys have already tweeted at Poco quoting the following Article.
Maybe we could boost that message a little, to speed up that process to get the Sources.
Of course I don't really mean that we should annoy the shi* out of them or be rude, but maybe a little reminder, from their users, might help.
Tweet: https://twitter.com/xdadevelopers/status/1327165355979059200
I for one, fully agree. Sadly, though, I'm not on Twitter. :good:
Another appropriate venue for this gentle pressure would be the official forum at https://c.mi.com/forum-2861-1.html.
Can you document other Twitter posts here? They would come handy as templates and indicators...
.
Gizchina now posted an article about it as well.
https://www.gizchina.com/2020/11/13...ot-available-despite-launch-days-promise/amp/
Do you guys really believed that a company that makes you wait one week to unlock the bootloader will give you the kernel source right away?
I don't go by what I believe, I go by what they said.
That being said. No, I don't believe that.
Sill, it doesn't hurt to ask and remind them again. Worst case, nothing happens, best case, it helped a little.
editheraven said:
Do you guys really believed that a company that makes you wait one week to unlock the bootloader will give you the kernel source right away?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They did so before, dunno what's keeping them from doing it now.
Maybe because of Dynamic Partitions?
Dynamic Partitions
Ezzady said:
Maybe because of Dynamic Partitions?
Dynamic Partitions
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why is dynamic partitions stopping them from sharing source?
Google shared the kernel source for pixel 4a and 5 already
Kernel released, guys.
https://github.com/MiCode/Xiaomi_Kernel_OpenSource/tree/surya-q-oss
Looks like we have annoyed them enough and they finally released it, thank god
Maybe. ?
Not sure if there is a correlation, but I'm sure it definitely didn't hurt. I'm just glad we have them now.