Related
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2578566
I don't know if you guys know about this... This allows unsigned kernel modules to be loaded on the equivalent of MI1. If anyone wants to take the steps described by the OP and build for NC5, this would open the ability to work on Kexec and AOSP via Safestrap (with the actual AOSP Kernel!).
npjohnson said:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2578566
I don't know if you guys know about this... This allows unsigned kernel modules to be loaded on the equivalent of MI1. If anyone wants to take the steps described by the OP and build for NC5, then work on Kexec and AOSP via Safestrap (with the actual AOSP Kernel!).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So are you basically making this thread not to offer anything new, just to tell people to do more work for you?
Most of the S4 devs already saw that 8 months ago and did what they could with it...
scryan said:
So are you basically making this thread not to offer anything new, just to tell people to do more work for you?
Most of the S4 devs already saw that and did what they could with it...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow. Way to overreact dude. NO I am not telling you or anyone to do work for me. The ATT and Verizon forums find different things, and therefore, sometimes there is a delay in the info being transferred back and forth. Did anywhere in my post did I say/insinuate that I was forcing people to do work for me? NO, I did not, I just shared some info from the other forum, and you replied by complaining about me cross posting. Thanks for that.
I know that they have probably seen the initial post, but there are some helpful posts later in the thread that seemed interesting about building for later firmwares.
I then even proceeded to try and have been debugging it for the last hour or so...
Update
I tried to follow the steps in the OP of the mentioned thread, but loading an unsigned test module on NC5 fails, although BypassKSLM is loading... More work required.
I think that the fix should be somewhere in the:
if (krsp->ret == 0) {
pr_warn("TIMA: lkmauth--verification succeeded.\n");
ret = 0; /* ret should already be 0 before the assignment. */
As I failed to get ret=0 before assignment.
npjohnson said:
Wow. Way to overreact dude. NO I am not telling you or anyone to do work for me. The ATT and Verizon forums find different things, and therefore, sometimes there is a delay in the info being transferred back and forth. Did anywhere in my post did I say/insinuate that I was forcing people to do work for me? NO, I did not, I just shared some info from the other forum, and you replied by complaining about me cross posting. Thanks for that.
I know that they have probably seen the initial post, but there are some helpful posts later in the thread that seemed interesting about building for later firmwares.
I then even proceeded to try and have been debugging it for the last hour or so...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Cross posting from 8 months ago, after the maker of safestrap (who has accepted a job and recently abandoned further development) has tried and moved on from getting a working kexec...
Its great your working on it. But before bringing it to the main forum and getting people worked up it might be good to make even some progress, otherwise we are just looping back to where we were 8 months ago.
Beyond that.... Hasn't this been patched?
jeboo said:
I got this idea after reading about CVE-2013-6282 and seeing the source for it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its based on get get_user put_user exploit yes?
Surge hints at the same fact later, when he discusses whether or not it could be run on a S3
Surge1223 said:
This depends on whether or not you are able to root using saferoot or not (since its dependent on the get/put_user exploit) and whether your stock kernel was compiled with support for loading modules. You can check your kernel source config file to see.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Mentioning being able to run saferoot as an easy method to check and see if the exploit is still avalible, which on NC5 it wasn't right?
scryan said:
Cross posting from 8 months ago, after the maker of safestrap (who has accepted a job and recently abandoned further development) has tried and moved on from getting a working kexec...
Its great your working on it. But before bringing it to the main forum and getting people worked up it might be good to make even some progress, otherwise we are just looping back to where we were 8 months ago.
Beyond that.... Hasn't this been patched?
Its based on get get_user put_user exploit yes?
Surge hints at the same fact later, when he discusses whether or not it could be run on a S3
Mentioning being able to run saferoot as an easy method to check and see if the exploit is still avalible, which on NC5 it wasn't right?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My apologies for the misunderstanding on the NC5 part, I am using Surges Downgrade to 4.3, which (4.3) still has the get_user put_user exploit. Still NC5 BL, but 4.3 on /system. Plus if we got kexec working on downgraded 4.3, it wouldn't matter that it was 4.3 because we could just load a 4.4 kernel and rom.
My goal was to try to revive (restart from scratch) the project and see where it got to. I currently got a test module loading (what others have already gotten to), now I want to take my own crack at kexec. It probably won't bear fruit, it could though, and thats the idea... but regardless it is a good learning process.
Plus kexec isn't out only option... It works well with safestrap, but there are many other pieces that when put together can function alike kexec, one being ksplice.
npjohnson said:
My apologies for the misunderstanding on the NC5 part, I am using Surges Downgrade to 4.3, which (4.3) still has the get_user put_user exploit. Still NC5 BL, but 4.3 on /system. Plus if we got kexec working on downgraded 4.3, it wouldn't matter that it was 4.3 because we could just load a 4.4 kernel and rom.
My goal was to try to revive (restart from scratch) the project and see where it got to. I currently got a test module loading (what others have already gotten to), now I want to take my own crack at kexec. It probably won't bear fruit, it could though, and thats the idea... but regardless it is a good learning process.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think part of the issue was something along the lines that the kernel is checked and if it does not pass the phone is shutdown/crippled/set into some mode.
Kexec may be slightly more relevant now that there is some access to the trusted zone, but I really have no idea what I am talking about on that one.
But before you worry too much about "Kexec" make sure you are aware of and understand checks on the kernels validity, if they are performed by the tz, and what/how much access to the tz there is now with Dan's latest... at least that my 2 cents.
It seemed the whole kexec thing kind of dead ended because the issue is a bit deeper then just getting a working kexec module and loading a new kernel.
scryan said:
I think part of the issue was something along the lines that the kernel is checked and if it does not pass the phone is shutdown/crippled/set into some mode.
Kexec may be slightly more relevant now that there is some access to the trusted zone, but I really have no idea what I am talking about on that one.
But before you worry too much about "Kexec" make sure you are aware of and understand checks on the kernels validity, if they are performed by the tz, and what/how much access to the tz there is now with Dan's latest... at least that my 2 cents.
It seemed the whole kexec thing kind of dead ended because the issue is a bit deeper then just getting a working kexec module and loading a new kernel.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know. The main reason I posted this was to work in tandem with Dan's new TZ Exploit. It allows running unsigned code at TZ level, and the possibility of turning off TIMA almost altogether, with TIMA disabled, and low level unsigned code, writing a kexec module would the be the next step.
scryan said:
Cross posting from 8 months ago, after the maker of safestrap (who has accepted a job and recently abandoned further development) has tried and moved on from getting a working kexec...
Its great your working on it. But before bringing it to the main forum and getting people worked up it might be good to make even some progress, otherwise we are just looping back to where we were 8 months ago.
Beyond that.... Hasn't this been patched?
Its based on get get_user put_user exploit yes?
Surge hints at the same fact later, when he discusses whether or not it could be run on a S3
Mentioning being able to run saferoot as an easy method to check and see if the exploit is still avalible, which on NC5 it wasn't right?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well back when I typed that the get_user/put_user exploit was the only exploit we had that could overwrite kernel memory. Now that we have towelroot its also theoretically possible to re-implement bypasslkm on NC5 depending on how they mightve patched it.
I tried doing this but since not many cared or even tried to make use of bypasslkm the first time around I didnt post my findings, nonetheless this info might be useful to future individuals trying to do the same. I really hope someone makes use of what im about to type.
So the first time around jeboo had an error log and was able to find the address to patch since we had kernel source and he probably decompressed the zimage and found the relevent lkmauth address.
There is another way to enable insecure module loading (using the same approach and address as bypasslkm) by using objdump on the vmlinux produced from compiling the kernel from source, then finding the following
1a000002 bne <copy_and_check.isra.22+xxx>
then by doing some math, and guess checking you can use devmem2 to write 0x0 to whatever address returned the ARM opcode 1a000002, for mk2 this address is 0x802c9d58 (may seem familiar if you have looked at bypasslkm.c)
I confirmed by manually writing writing 0x0 at 0x802c9d58 = modules verified and returning the value to 0x1a000002 = modules modified.
I tried to find <copy_and_check.isra.22+xxx> in NC5 kernel source however it is non-existant. I have not yet tried to decompress the zimage and search for the relevant lkmauth messages to see if bypasslkm is still able to be implemented or to see how it may have/may not have been patched. This is probably the first step I should have done, so anyone starting now should start with that step, decompressing the zimage and searching for the lkmauth messages and see how the check is implemented.
Surge1223 said:
Well back when I typed that the get_user/put_user exploit was the only exploit we had that could overwrite kernel memory. Now that we have towelroot its also theoretically possible to re-implement bypasslkm on NC5 depending on how they mightve patched it.
I tried doing this but since not many cared or even tried to make use of bypasslkm the first time around I didnt post my findings, nonetheless this info might be useful to future individuals trying to do the same. I really hope someone makes use of what im about to type.
So the first time around jeboo had an error log and was able to find the address to patch since we had kernel source and he probably decompressed the zimage and found the relevent lkmauth address.
There is another way to enable insecure module loading (using the same approach and address as bypasslkm) by using objdump on the vmlinux produced from compiling the kernel from source, then finding the following
1a000002 bne <copy_and_check.isra.22+xxx>
then by doing some math, and guess checking you can use devmem2 to write 0x0 to whatever address returned the ARM opcode 1a000002, for mk2 this address is 0x802c9d58 (may seem familiar if you have looked at bypasslkm.c)
I confirmed by manually writing writing 0x0 at 0x802c9d58 = modules verified and returning the value to 0x1a000002 = modules modified.
I tried to find <copy_and_check.isra.22+xxx> in NC5 kernel source however it is non-existant. I have not yet tried to decompress the zimage and search for the relevant lkmauth messages to see if bypasslkm is still able to be implemented or to see how it may have/may not have been patched. This is probably the first step I should have done, so anyone starting now should start with that step, decompressing the zimage and searching for the lkmauth messages and see how the check is implemented.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I lack the knowledge to even attempt this but I do hope another tries at least. I miss aosp. I'm coming from a HTC with s-off and I'm not used to the restrictions placed on such a locked down phone. I do hope that some work around for running an unsecured kernel will be found at least. Thanks for the information and hopefully it will be put to good use
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Xparent Skyblue Tapatalk 2
Surge1223 said:
Well back when I typed that the get_user/put_user exploit was the only exploit we had that could overwrite kernel memory. Now that we have towelroot its also theoretically possible to re-implement bypasslkm on NC5 depending on how they mightve patched it.
I tried doing this but since not many cared or even tried to make use of bypasslkm the first time around I didnt post my findings, nonetheless this info might be useful to future individuals trying to do the same. I really hope someone makes use of what im about to type.
So the first time around jeboo had an error log and was able to find the address to patch since we had kernel source and he probably decompressed the zimage and found the relevent lkmauth address.
There is another way to enable insecure module loading (using the same approach and address as bypasslkm) by using objdump on the vmlinux produced from compiling the kernel from source, then finding the following
1a000002 bne <copy_and_check.isra.22+xxx>
then by doing some math, and guess checking you can use devmem2 to write 0x0 to whatever address returned the ARM opcode 1a000002, for mk2 this address is 0x802c9d58 (may seem familiar if you have looked at bypasslkm.c)
I confirmed by manually writing writing 0x0 at 0x802c9d58 = modules verified and returning the value to 0x1a000002 = modules modified.
I tried to find <copy_and_check.isra.22+xxx> in NC5 kernel source however it is non-existant. I have not yet tried to decompress the zimage and search for the relevant lkmauth messages to see if bypasslkm is still able to be implemented or to see how it may have/may not have been patched. This is probably the first step I should have done, so anyone starting now should start with that step, decompressing the zimage and searching for the lkmauth messages and see how the check is implemented.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I though about TowelRoots ability to do the same as get_put, but understanding exactly how it (TR) works is tough due to llvm-obfuscator. After reading a theoretical writeup of TR, I found this:
Source: http://tinyhack.com/2014/07/07/exploiting-the-futex-bug-and-uncovering-towelroot/
I thought that due ti the nature of the Futex bug that our best bet was a 4.3 downgrade... though what you are saying makes sense... So, your saying that the memory address to be written to 0x0 has merely changed location? (Im probably misunderstanding you...) I thought that they they had moved that flag out of memory to prevent writing...
How are you decompressing zimage? I tried using instructions like these https://github.com/xiaolu/galaxys2_kernel_repack (obviously changed for our model), but I am having some issues..
npjohnson said:
I though about TowelRoots ability to do the same as get_put, but understanding exactly how it (TR) works is tough due to llvm-obfuscator. After reading a theoretical writeup of TR, I found this:
Source: http://tinyhack.com/2014/07/07/exploiting-the-futex-bug-and-uncovering-towelroot/
I thought that due ti the nature of the Futex bug that our best bet was a 4.3 downgrade... though what you are saying makes sense... So, your saying that the memory address to be written to 0x0 has merely changed location? (Im probably misunderstanding you...) I thought that they they had moved that flag out of memory to prevent writing...
How are you decompressing zimage? I tried using instructions like these https://github.com/xiaolu/galaxys2_kernel_repack (obviously changed for our model), but I am having some issues..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do you have the kernel compiled?
Surge1223 said:
Do you have the kernel compiled?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am doing what you were talking about first to learn... Im doing it from an MK2 JB device. So I have the kernel compiled for that one. But I haven't begun on my NC5 KK device yet. We don't have kernel source for NC5 yet, do we?
npjohnson said:
I am doing what you were talking about first to learn... Im doing it from an MK2 JB device. So I have the kernel compiled for that one. But I haven't begun on my NC5 KK device yet. We don't have kernel source for NC5 yet, do we?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://opensource.samsung.com/reception/receptionSub.do?method=search&searchValue=SCH-I545
I've been reading articles on kexec being used for Linux fast reboots, which sounds a lot like our Fastboot. BUT, I have a Fast Reboot option on my phone. Can someone ELI5 the difference bw Linux Fast Reboot, Android Fastboot, and Android Fast Reboot?
FYI, I *know* the S4 doesn't support Fastboot that's why I'm asking about fast reboot and if it is different.
sokrboot said:
I've been reading articles on kexec being used for Linux fast reboots, which sounds a lot like our Fastboot. BUT, I have a Fast Reboot option on my phone. Can someone ELI5 the difference bw Linux Fast Reboot, Android Fastboot, and Android Fast Reboot?
FYI, I *know* the S4 doesn't support Fastboot that's why I'm asking about fast reboot and if it is different.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'll let someone more experienced explain any relevance, if there is any, but as far as the "fast reboot" or "hot reboot" option in your power menu... its a method of rebooting that only restarts the GUI.
http://www.xda-developers.com/windows-mobile/reboot-the-shell-only-with-hot-reboot-for-android/
sokrboot said:
I've been reading articles on kexec being used for Linux fast reboots, which sounds a lot like our Fastboot. BUT, I have a Fast Reboot option on my phone. Can someone ELI5 the difference bw Linux Fast Reboot, Android Fastboot, and Android Fast Reboot?
FYI, I *know* the S4 doesn't support Fastboot that's why I'm asking about fast reboot and if it is different.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Fastboot and fast reboot are in no way related, or even similar.
RuggedHunter said:
I'll let someone more experienced explain any relevance, if there is any, but as far as the "fast reboot" or "hot reboot" option in your power menu... its a method of rebooting that only restarts the GUI.
http://www.xda-developers.com/windows-mobile/reboot-the-shell-only-with-hot-reboot-for-android/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
@RuggedHunter thanks for replying with helpful information, I appreciate it.
Surge1223 said:
http://opensource.samsung.com/reception/receptionSub.do?method=search&searchValue=SCH-I545
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Kernel Compiled
Don't forget to hit the thanks button.
http://superstarmobility.weebly.com/
New thread: http://forum.xda-developers.com/android/development/twrp-m1-lg-k7-t3462130.
(Above TWRP can be flashed with Flashify from Playstore)
Instructions from video:
With phone powered off, hold POWER and VOLUME DOWN buttons until LG logo shows. Release POWER then quickly press and hold again until factory reset menu comes up. Select YES and you will be booted into recovery instead of a factory reset ; )
Thanks @czarsuperstar!
V2 with the proper cmd line from m1 aka LG K7
Reserved.
This the real deal?
goitalone said:
This the real deal?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Of course. You looked at the video?
goitalone said:
This the real deal?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've used it and can confirm, first tested it with fastboot without flashing of course(use adb to get to the bootloader: adb reboot bootloader , then fastboot:fastboot boot "twrp.img file, tested then rebooted into bootloader, then flashed via fastboot:fastboot flash "twrp.img file") instructions are for any random person that come by i know you know how to do all this
concerned xda citizen
what are the boardconfig.mk file contents that you used to compile this recovery?
the fact youre using a ghetto hacked twrp that works is fine, but id prefer an actual device specific twrp version that will reliably work - theres no telling what this twrp can do to your device, and the fact youre using another devices ramdisk scares the hell out of me.
ramdisks arent something you play around with - you can seriously ruin someones device like that.
also requesting the twrp fstab file youve used.
youre literally just throwing files at users that have perviously bricked their devices and not explaining in detail what they consist of.
if you seriously damage any of these user's device partitions by overwriting the wrong partition, are you going to pay for the devices when theyre hardbricked and no longer responsive to the oem flashing?
not once have a even seen a warning on these files yet youre just posting forum to forum; not to mention youre inexperienced at rom/kernel/recovery compiling for the fact you think its okay to just throw a different devices ramdisk in there " because it just works." when we have readily available source for our device.
legally- youre held responsible for these files youre distributing.
and to those just flashing this twrp file to their device, yes its reversible - but would you want to find out it doesnt work when its too late? IE backing up partitions in the wrong order, and restoring them into the wrong partitions? the video shows it backs up and restores, but is it doing so in the right order? in the right places. i may be ranting but id rather be careful/safe then sorry.
not one detail of this compile/build has been released, just a link that is claimed to work.
"left sock fits on right, doesnt feel right - but my feet aren't cold!" is how this feels to me.
i was sketched to even test this twrp version considering you need to tell the factory reset "yes, i want to wipe" twice, in order to boot to twrp.
idk about you but ive never seen any recovery warrant those options. normally twrp would just boot upon button combo - which is why im sharing this post. recoveries arent supposed to be functioning that way.
NASSTYROME said:
what are the boardconfig.mk file contents that you used to compile this recovery?
the fact youre using a ghetto hacked twrp that works is fine, but id prefer an actual device specific twrp version that will reliably work - theres no telling what this twrp can do to your device, and the fact youre using another devices ramdisk scares the hell out of me.
ramdisks arent something you play around with - you can seriously ruin someones device like that.
also requesting the twrp fstab file youve used.
youre literally just throwing files at users that have perviously bricked their devices and not explaining in detail what they consist of.
if you seriously damage any of these user's device partitions by overwriting the wrong partition, are you going to pay for the devices when theyre hardbricked and no longer responsive to the oem flashing?
not once have a even seen a warning on these files yet youre just posting forum to forum; not to mention youre inexperienced at rom/kernel/recovery compiling for the fact you think its okay to just throw a different devices ramdisk in there " because it just works." when we have readily available source for our device.
legally- youre held responsible for these files youre distributing.
and to those just flashing this twrp file to their device, yes its reversible - but would you want to find out it doesnt work when its too late? IE backing up partitions in the wrong order, and restoring them into the wrong partitions? the video shows it backs up and restores, but is it doing so in the right order? in the right places. i may be ranting but id rather be careful/safe then sorry.
not one detail of this compile/build has been released, just a link that is claimed to work.
"left sock fits on right, doesnt feel right - but my feet aren't cold!" is how this feels to me.
i was sketched to even test this twrp version considering you need to tell the factory reset "yes, i want to wipe" twice, in order to boot to twrp.
idk about you but ive never seen any recovery warrant those options. normally twrp would just boot upon button combo - which is why im sharing this post. recoveries arent supposed to be functioning that way.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The first twrp was from a htc phone. This is from lg leon lte. Same manufacturer. I used my boot.img dumped on my sdcard and used the ramdisk from Twrp Leon aka c50 the leon twrp is missing the options seen on this one. Don't use it. But I'm working on cm_m1 so continue to use the old one and when your phone can't come on have fun getting in recovery. Make it better.
Recovery log
Make a log.
NASSTYROME said:
what are the boardconfig.mk file contents that you used to compile this recovery?
the fact youre using a ghetto hacked twrp that works is fine, but id prefer an actual device specific twrp version that will reliably work - theres no telling what this twrp can do to your device, and the fact youre using another devices ramdisk scares the hell out of me.
ramdisks arent something you play around with - you can seriously ruin someones device like that.
also requesting the twrp fstab file youve used.
youre literally just throwing files at users that have perviously bricked their devices and not explaining in detail what they consist of.
if you seriously damage any of these user's device partitions by overwriting the wrong partition, are you going to pay for the devices when theyre hardbricked and no longer responsive to the oem flashing?
not once have a even seen a warning on these files yet youre just posting forum to forum; not to mention youre inexperienced at rom/kernel/recovery compiling for the fact you think its okay to just throw a different devices ramdisk in there " because it just works." when we have readily available source for our device.
legally- youre held responsible for these files youre distributing.
and to those just flashing this twrp file to their device, yes its reversible - but would you want to find out it doesnt work when its too late? IE backing up partitions in the wrong order, and restoring them into the wrong partitions? the video shows it backs up and restores, but is it doing so in the right order? in the right places. i may be ranting but id rather be careful/safe then sorry.
not one detail of this compile/build has been released, just a link that is claimed to work.
"left sock fits on right, doesnt feel right - but my feet aren't cold!" is how this feels to me.
i was sketched to even test this twrp version considering you need to tell the factory reset "yes, i want to wipe" twice, in order to boot to twrp.
idk about you but ive never seen any recovery warrant those options. normally twrp would just boot upon button combo - which is why im sharing this post. recoveries arent supposed to be functioning that way.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Check out the LG L70 it's the same way to get in recovery. This must be your first LG phone.
i dont care whether its the same way to enter recovery, my care is youre using another phone's ramdisk in this device.
"I used my boot.img dumped on my sdcard and used the ramdisk from Twrp Leon aka c50 the leon"
post twrp.fstab and boardconfig.mk youve used for this "twrp" build.
this must be your first posting for development on an unsupported device.
as for anyone using another device's files when we have access to source of our own device - i wouldnt trust them to build anything, let alone CM. thats just pure shortcutting and laziness .. and at what expense?
as for twrp making this official, they wont - as you cannot provide SOURCE.
So, now, hopefully you've compiled TWRP for your device and gotten it working. Now, you'd like to know how to get TWRP officially supported for your device so that it can be installed automatically with GooManager. In order for us to add "official support" for your device we'll need the following:
1) Device configuration files to compile TWRP from source for your device. This means that you cannot have repacked a recovery.img by hand to get it working. We need to be able to compile it from source so that we can easily release future updates.
2) A copy of a build prop for your device (it's in /system/build.prop) so that we can add the correct device information to GooManager
3) We'll build a copy of TWRP and send it to you for validation. Once you've validated that we can build a working image for your device, we'll add it to GooManager.
Go spam the other thread. Over 200 downloads and no problems but there was problems right away with the first version. For your info download Twrp c50 from the Twrp site examine it and ask why it's incomplete. That's why I linked the video of the Twrp from the site and same problems. Bye and leave me be. Hd2 check it out. Czarsuperstar's HTC HD2 android custom roms. Check it out and leave me alone. Thanks for your concern. Oh and for your info we have the same keyboard configuration as the LG Leon. There's a device tree. Google it. Google is your friend bro.
NASSTYROME said:
i dont care whether its the same way to enter recovery, my care is youre using another phone's ramdisk in this device.
"I used my boot.img dumped on my sdcard and used the ramdisk from Twrp Leon aka c50 the leon"
post twrp.fstab and boardconfig.mk youve used for this "twrp" build.
this must be your first posting for development on an unsupported device.
as for anyone using another device's files when we have access to source of our own device - i wouldnt trust them to build anything, let alone CM. thats just pure shortcutting and laziness .. and at what expense?
as for twrp making this official, they wont - as you cannot provide SOURCE.
So, now, hopefully you've compiled TWRP for your device and gotten it working. Now, you'd like to know how to get TWRP officially supported for your device so that it can be installed automatically with GooManager. In order for us to add "official support" for your device we'll need the following:
1) Device configuration files to compile TWRP from source for your device. This means that you cannot have repacked a recovery.img by hand to get it working. We need to be able to compile it from source so that we can easily release future updates.
2) A copy of a build prop for your device (it's in /system/build.prop) so that we can add the correct device information to GooManager
3) We'll build a copy of TWRP and send it to you for validation. Once you've validated that we can build a working image for your device, we'll add it to GooManager.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
not saying a official twrp isn't preferable, but man you got to learn how to talk to people, you were just short of cursing the dude out, and as far as the recovery the thing is solid(tested backup, flash and restore/ anyhow we got LGUP if you **** up so its not a huge deal), but anyone on this site shouldn't take someones word for things like recovery's and you should always test boot before you flash, also you don't seem to understand the first rule of xda-whatever happens to your device is on you, been that way since the og day's- talking politely to others is the way to go about things, people wont listen if you combative.
Kernel
Im building the kernel from source right now check out the video on Twitter. Anyone that wants to join the development I am down with it.
Didn't work, after selecting yes twice, my phone just starts like normal, doesn't go to TWRP or factory restore, it is there though because I can boot to it from the flashify app, ah well.
wait...my bad, I was highlighting the wrong one, lol, works great, thanks
Assuming it ever worked right it should work better now because you can always get to it.
As for concerns about the ramdisk I don't see any issues with that, it's just being used to boot and run recovery on if I'm not mistaken and apparently where the buttons get enabled so a necessity.
Considering many phones have such hacked together recoverys and many more have no custom recovery I'm thankful to have it particularly since most of my work is done away from my pc.
callihn said:
Assuming it ever worked right it should work better now because you can always get to it.
As for concerns about the ramdisk I don't see any issues with that, it's just being used to boot and run recovery on if I'm not mistaken and apparently where the buttons get enabled so a necessity.
Considering many phones have such hacked together recoverys and many more have no custom recovery I'm thankful to have it particularly since most of my work is done away from my pc.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for report. The other Twrp w/o the button combo was from a HTC phone lol and I am getting blasted. HTC or LG? LG K7. ... LG.
[email protected] said:
Thanks for report. The other Twrp w/o the button combo was from a HTC phone lol and I am getting blasted. HTC or LG? LG K7. ... LG.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Right and that's why the buttons didn't work. Great job! Best discovery yet for this phone, so happy that we can restore now withoit adb and withoit having to worry about debugging getting turn off, very essential find. Don't let those that don't understand get you down.
callihn said:
Right and that's why the buttons didn't work. Great job! Best discovery yet for this phone, so happy that we can restore now withoit adb and withoit having to worry about debugging getting turn off, very essential find. Don't let those that don't understand get you down.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm working on building it from source but keep getting errors and I'm trying it with another device that has Twrp (Moto E 2015) and followed the directions to the T and no luck. So I am trying......... Will let everyone know how it's going.
[email protected] said:
Im building the kernel from source right now check out the video on Twitter. Anyone that wants to join the development I am down with it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
kernel??????????????????????????
im down!
UPDATED 2/19/2018
Almost enough here to start attempting debug builds... any other builders/devs out there working on this device? Hopefully some of this will be useful.
Minimal Omni device tree for TWRP (full lineage branch in progress as of 2/19/2018)
https://github.com/mightysween/android_device_motorola_payton
Proprietary blobs/vendor (initial push 2/19/2018):
https://github.com/mightysween/android_vendor_motorola_payton
Partition names/locations/mounts...maybe a few missing still:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EkPOkc8uUStKIjRGC2-4jkcXpxmj8v3piGPqZi9ctQM/edit?usp=drivesdk
7.1 KERNEL SOURCE:
https://github.com/MotorolaMobilityLLC/kernel-msm/tree/7.1.1-nougat-release-payton
8.0 KERNEL SOURCE:
https://github.com/MotorolaMobilityLLC/kernel-msm/releases/tag/MMI-OPW27.57-40
So what's the deal with the A/B partitions? I've seen that there are some lineage OS commits to handle the A/B partitions. Would it be possible to load an OS to the A partition and put the recovery on the B partition. I'm not familiar enough to know how much control of the boot process we can have with boot time commands. Does the bootloader have a boot to recovery option?
There doesn't seem to be a recovery partition in the list that you provided. I wonder what the fastboot commands look like... just thinking out loud on the internet. I don't have the phone yet, but I did have a look at Best Buy, so that practically makes me an expert. I have a N5X, so I'm lining up the successor for after its sudden, but inevitable betrayal.
gee one said:
So what's the deal with the A/B partitions? I've seen that there are some lineage OS commits to handle the A/B partitions. Would it be possible to load an OS to the A partition and put the recovery on the B partition. I'm not familiar enough to know how much control of the boot process we can have with boot time commands. Does the bootloader have a boot to recovery option?
There doesn't seem to be a recovery partition in the list that you provided. I wonder what the fastboot commands look like... just thinking out loud on the internet. I don't have the phone yet, but I did have a look at Best Buy, so that practically makes me an expert. I have a N5X, so I'm lining up the successor for after its sudden, but inevitable betrayal.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is no traditional recovery partition...handled by boot. A/B is mainly to allow 'seamless' updates (as in OTA that downloads to the other partition for instant reboot). Bit more to it... if you want to read more, check out the Pixel forums.
Well... progress is being made. Wish there were others (there must be!) working on this.
I have the stock kernel, a VERY basic device tree, and cobbled-together vendor... syncing repos and will try to compile TWRP over the weekend. I do not expect it to work
Dealing with this right now on brunch...runs fine up until this point, appreciate any thoughts:
Starting build with ninja
ninja: Entering directory `.'
ninja: error: '/home/mightysween/android/omni/out/target/product/payton/obj/SHARED_LIBRARIES/libcryptfs_hw_intermediates/export_includes', needed by '/home/mightysween/android/omni/out/target/product/payton/obj/SHARED_LIBRARIES/libcryptfslollipop_intermediates/import_includes', missing and no known rule to make it
build/core/ninja.mk:157: recipe for target 'ninja_wrapper' failed
make: *** [ninja_wrapper] Error 1
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do I really need the lollipop libs???? Especially if I just want to compile TWRP and not full omni. Ahhhhhhh....so much fun
OK, got TWRP to compile
Need to do some testing in the emulator and double and triple check all sources and configs before even thinking about trying to boot it on the actual device.
But just troubleshooting at this point, so looking good for TWRP in coming days!
UPDATE: oops, totally compiled it with the wrong kernel. Haha... working through some defconfig issues, but hopefully nothing too crazy.
mightysween said:
OK, got TWRP to compile
Need to do some testing in the emulator and double and triple check all sources and configs before even thinking about trying to boot it on the actual device.
But just troubleshooting at this point, so looking good for TWRP in coming days!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I hope you can do it! Is the first step to get backups and ROMs. I don´t have the phone yet, but later the normal version that is sell in México and want to flash the Android One version (previously anyone get it working).
I'm returning my Amazon version of this phone and getting Project Fi version. I am willing to help in testing.
Well, my boot.img compiles fine... but will not boot to recovery. Given the fact that it is mostly guesswork on the device tree, I am not shocked.
Pushed my working tree to GitHub and will keep working on it...
https://github.com/mightysween/android_device_motorola_payton
Been looking at Pixel 2 TWRP Alpha... holy cow. So much more to it with this partitioning scheme.
mightysween said:
Well, my boot.img compiles fine... but will not boot to recovery. Given the fact that it is mostly guesswork on the device tree, I am not shocked.
Pushed my working tree to GitHub and will keep working on it...
https://github.com/mightysween/android_device_motorola_payton
Been looking at Pixel 2 TWRP Alpha... holy cow. So much more to it with this partitioning scheme.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Have not even peeked into the Pixel 2 forums. I'm afraid this seems to be another ballgame entirely. Do the new Pixel owners even have root passing safety net while allowing these security updates new android phones now get? Gah this is a mess
SR3TLAW said:
Have not even peeked into the Pixel 2 forums. I'm afraid this seems to be another ballgame entirely. Do the new Pixel owners even have root passing safety net while allowing these security updates new android phones now get? Gah this is a mess
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
TWRP has been worked on for Pixel2 by several people, including expert Dees Troy, and is still a heavy alpha. I feel pretty good about booting compiled boot images and not bricking on x4 (as far as I have gotten)
I have been compiling my own stuff for many years, and yes -- this new stuff is foreign. But, we will all learn and in a few weeks/months, there will be plenty of action on this device
mightysween said:
TWRP has been worked on for Pixel2 by several people, including expert Dees Troy, and is still a heavy alpha. I feel pretty good about booting compiled boot images and not bricking on x4 (as far as I have gotten)
I have been compiling my own stuff for many years, and yes -- this new stuff is foreign. But, we will all learn and in a few weeks/months, there will be plenty of action on this device
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
try using fixes from https://github.com/TeamWin/android_device_xiaomi_tissot tree. similar android one device!!
i.snehal.kiran said:
try using fixes from https://github.com/TeamWin/android_device_xiaomi_tissot tree. similar android one device!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks, picked up 3 changes from here already... will test them out soon!
So, I have checked out several XDA threads on this Xiaomi device (tissot) and I think it is going to help quite a bit with the A/B issues.
I am still, unfortunately stuck on getting TWRP to boot. Boot.img compiles fine and I can extract it and see TWRP has replaced stock recovery in the ramdisk, but it will not boot into recovery.
Ideally, we need a way to boot a TWRP image without flashing anything... easier said than done with devices that have recovery baked into the boot image. But once that works, we can extract just the ramdisk from my build and write a script to patch it into the stock boot image from the temporary TWRP running on the device.
Progress! New TWRP thread coming soon...
BTW, there is still a long way to go here... this was just a rudimentary test to get TWRP to boot. Need to start totally fresh with partitions before there is any attempt to actually use it!
Also -- my build environment is a total cluster after weeks of messing around. I need to wipe it and start over. That alone will take me a few days, and TWRP might take a few weeks more.
Incredible! Looking forward to having a custom recovery!
mightysween said:
Progress! New TWRP thread coming soon...
BTW, there is still a long way to go here... this was just a rudimentary test to get TWRP to boot. Need to start totally fresh with partitions before there is any attempt to actually use it!
Also -- my build environment is a total cluster after weeks of messing around. I need to wipe it and start over. That alone will take me a few days, and TWRP might take a few weeks more.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I hope later we can flash the Android One firmware on the retail Moto X4, I supose that OTA update will not work but at least we will have the lastest updates if someone make a flashable version
f3r.and0 said:
I hope later we can flash the Android One firmware on the retail Moto X4, I supose that OTA update will not work but at least we will have the lastest updates if someone make a flashable version
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
At the very least, we have the ability to create "nandroid" style backup from A1 device. Theoretically, that could allow anyone to install it...
But yes, in the long run, hopefully the actual firmware is released
mightysween said:
At the very least, we have the ability to create "nandroid" style backup from A1 device. Theoretically, that could allow anyone to install it...
But yes, in the long run, hopefully the actual firmware is released
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Doesn't the nandroid (or for that matter Flashfire) backup contain personally unique identifiers?
DiDGR8 said:
Doesn't the nandroid (or for that matter Flashfire) backup contain personally unique identifiers?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, technically... obviously would need to start with a fresh system and limit to non-data partitions.
No one needs to restore someone else's apps... just their boot/oem/system_image
mightysween said:
Yes, technically... obviously would need to start with a fresh system and limit to non-data partitions.
No one needs to restore someone else's apps... just their boot/oem/system_image
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This just came to my mind, since this phone has 2 partitions for boot etc. --
Code:
mmcblk0p44: boot_a SIZE:65536 blocks
mmcblk0p45: boot_b
can't we make backup of boot_b ? it will be same as boot_a but unmodified i think ? i mean, use magisk/cf-autoroot/whatever to gain root on boot_a. and make backup of boot_b. so in case if we want to receive update, just restore back boot_b.img to boot_a slot and update through ota ? that way we can practically make full backup which is unmodified. ofc this is until we have fastboot image available and working TWRP.
also it seems all x4's are having same kernel according to this thread. although their build time is different.
Thread Closed
Thread Closed
Is it the same as this one?
https://twrp.me/motorola/motorolamotoe4plus.html
MobyDuhFreak said:
Is it the same as this one?
https://twrp.me/motorola/motorolamotoe4plus.html
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
@MobyDuhFreak
Yes it is same as the above in all aspects. :fingers-crossed:
But i port it and the above guy develop it from source. It is official and mine is unofficial.
Thanks for yuor work! I am interested in installing it on my phone, but the installation part is not clear to me. Can anyone that installed it tell me exactly what to do? Really thanks.
Fernandus91 said:
Thanks for yuor work! I am interested in installing it on my phone, but the installation part is not clear to me. Can anyone that installed it tell me exactly what to do? Really thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
PHP:
How To Install :
fastboot erase recovery
fastboot flash recovery twrp.img
No oem unlock/bootloader unlock? Great! Thanks!
Recovery works, however, I cannot install dm-verity or superuser.
Seems like the shell is screwed up :s
dm-verity update script gives following error:
/tmp/updater[63]: .: config.sh: No such file or directory
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the config.sh file definitely is there, though
Fr4gg0r said:
Recovery works, however, I cannot install dm-verity or superuser.
Seems like the shell is screwed up :s
dm-verity update script gives following error:
the config.sh file definitely is there, though
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are number of verity zip and it is now quite confusing which one to use or simply i say its an old school thing. Do this manually by removing ",verity" from recovery.fstab.
Hi ferends,
i have Motorola Moto E4 Plus MTK XT1771, can not instal any rom. Try to instal lineage 15 for my phone but after i flash phon nothing work in os, mobil data, wifi, camera, dont see may sim....adher roms for my phone I could not even flush.
and another problem I could not install any gapps for my phone
is there any solution?
Thank you
My E4 Plus 1771, don't' have Mediatek CPU 6737 but the 6735 version (tested with CPU-Z)
This, must be an obstacle in root operations ?
maxmot said:
My E4 Plus 1771, don't' have Mediatek CPU 6737 but the 6735 version (tested with CPU-Z)
This, must be an obstacle in root operations ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You too have CPU 6737. The 6735 is SOC (System-on-chip).
Look man why you always just making copies of recoveries . Can you explain the "port" process you used that makes this your work and not just another copy like other times ...
KevMetal said:
Look man why you always just making copies of recoveries . Can you explain the "port" process you used that makes this your work and not just another copy like other times ...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First of all tell me. Did you know how to port a recovery ?? Did you ever do any type of development work ?? Did you have any clue/idea on how to port a recovery ??
KevMetal said:
Look man why you always just making copies of recoveries . Can you explain the "port" process you used that makes this your work and not just another copy like other times ...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Also for God's sake stop killing the word Opensource. Also check credits in OP post.
KevMetal said:
Can you explain the "port" process you used that makes this your work and not just another copy like other times ...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes i know how to port and i can explain whereas you can't do that.
First all both devices must have similar SOC. Then take working twrp from similar soc device. Unpack it. Only use ramdisk folder from that twrp recovery. Copy that ramdisk folder in official twrp. Fix fstab because it is different for both device. You need to place some official twrp files into ramdisk of a port. Then compile that thing. I my case i forgot to change device id and build number and here you start your another crap that it is izaqkull twrp. Izaqkull twrp won't work in e4 plus. Someone need to port first to make it working. Use your little brain and common sense.
TheHitMan said:
Yes i know how to port and i can explain whereas you can't do that.
First all both devices must have similar SOC. Then take working twrp from similar soc device. Unpack it. Only use ramdisk folder from that twrp recovery. Copy that ramdisk folder in official twrp. Fix fstab because it is different for both device. You need to place some official twrp files into ramdisk of a port. Then compile that thing. I my case i forgot to change device id and build number and here you start your another crap that it is izaqkull twrp. Izaqkull twrp won't work in e4 plus. Someone need to port first to make it working. Use your little brain and common sense.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
:silly:jajaja yes exactly ...I think you didn't even do the porting ....that's why you can't fix the port , nor explain users the truth or even admit the problem is with the recovery ...not with the people ..if I did some original development I would take credit for it ..what I wouldn't do is try to claim that I developed something when I didn't ..or post broken or insecure stuff to give people the run around and still have the cheek to add it to my signature ...if you don't have the device take down the .zip and remove it from your signature or modify thread to tell users the truth and start to learn to address others with respect or you will never get it yourself ..
Furthermore you tell me I'm killing open source if I tell you not to copy :silly::silly:work or post broken stuff....:silly:
I think you don't understand what open source is .......
OK man good luck in your endeavours but please just fix your stuff or take them down ...its not the first time you copied recoveries or posted recoveries that caused problems...this has got nothing to do with open source or if I'm a dev.
KevMetal said:
:silly:jajaja yes exactly ...I think you didn't even do the porting ....that's why you can't fix the port , nor explain users the truth or even admit the problem is with the recovery ...not with the people ..if I did some original development I would take credit for it ..what I wouldn't do is try to claim that I developed something when I didn't ..or post broken or insecure stuff to give people the run around and still have the cheek to add it to my signature ...if you don't have the device take down the .zip and remove it from your signature or modify thread to tell users the truth and start to learn to address others with respect or you will never get it yourself ..
Furthermore you tell me I'm killing open source if I tell you not to copy :silly::silly:work or post broken stuff....:silly:
I think you don't understand what open source is .......
OK man good luck in your endeavours but please just fix your stuff or take them down ...its not the first time you copied recoveries or posted recoveries that caused problems...this has got nothing to do with open source or if I'm a dev.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Man i dunno what problem you have with me. But you are screwing everything. Did you ever get the word PORT. Also i ported that recovery at that time when there is nothing. It is just a blank forum in xda thread. I know opensource well thats why i gave credit to izaqkull for his twrp ramdisk. What kind of truth you want to hear, i already gave answers to you so many times. Ported thing may have some bugs and that bug is fixed in later time. Even there was no custom roms before when i ported twrp to this device. So no such report from so long. Why don't i have put that thing in my signature i ported that recovery not you. You just here doing free lancing stuffs not actual development. Also you want pure stuffs without any bugs. LOL. Even custom roms have bugs but those bugs fixed later.
You already screwed me before and i already gave answers to your question. So stop cluttering my xda post. You aren't doing anything better. If you have bugs report and i will fix them later. But you aren't doing that thing. You just here to take me down at any cost. Also that recovery is no copy pasted stuff. Use your little brain you can't directly use moto e4 twrp in moto e4 plus. Even there is nothing like one time stuffs you developed it without bugs. First do some dev. work or first come at my place then you will know it well.
Changelog 20-December-2018 :
> Fix wrong product name.
> General fixes in TWRP.
> Get download link from attachment.
Note : This is still a port and i made that port, when there is no official twrp recovery for this device. So every fix done in that ported twrp.
EDIT : The bug which is left out is fixed now. No more product, build errors. I already sold my device. So there is no point to make this thread open. If you have any query, you can DM me.
Moderator Information
Thread closed at OP's request.
Compiled Stock Kernel + Sources
*insert usual disclaimer here*
I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE TO YOUR DEVICE. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
Testing? What will work?
Bugs:
- You tell me
INSTRUCTIONS
0. MAKE BACKUP
1. Download zip file
2. Download Magisk
3. Download Magisk fix
4. Flash Magisk
5. Flash Magisk fix
6. Flash Kernel zip
Resources:
SOURCE CODE
DOWNLOAD {Mod edit}
Credits:
karthick111
@datty
Hi mKenfenheuer, thanks for the credit.
I'm at the same point, I can get the kernel to build but no boot. I get dropped back to fastboot immediately after trying to boot.
I've tried flashing a blank vbmeta, but it didn't seem to help. I'm not sure if it is the AVB2.0 blocking the boot or something else.
I've noticed you've changed OPPO_TARGET_DEVICE to MSM_19061. How did you decide on that value? I've since been using MSM_19781 as that is the value of getprop ro.product.prjversion from my device (Malaysian version)
datty said:
Hi mKenfenheuer, thanks for the credit.
I'm at the same point, I can get the kernel to build but no boot. I get dropped back to fastboot immediately after trying to boot.
I've tried flashing a blank vbmeta, but it didn't seem to help. I'm not sure if it is the AVB2.0 blocking the boot or something else.
I've noticed you've changed OPPO_TARGET_DEVICE to MSM_19061. How did you decide on that value? I've since been using MSM_19781 as that is the value of getprop ro.product.prjversion from my device (Malaysian version)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Same behaviour for me. I've started with the target device mentioned in your repo, then changed to 19781, afterwards i've been trying out the ones from drivers/input/oppo_fp_driver/Makefile. I've just been stuck at 19061 since it was the last one i've tried, there is no specific reason for that.
I've not been working with devices with AVB 2.0 - i can see that my device is displaying "Secureboot enabled" in fastboot. As far as i can say this would be a pretty good reason for the device to refuse booting the new kernel as our kernel is probably not signed.
I'll look into signing the kernel with the dev key in the repo root. Maybe this helps. If not we would problaby need another solution to get around the secure boot.
I've made some progress, I can get the kernel to try to boot but I'm stuck at the realme logo without adb to debug what is wrong.
If you're using the kernel config extracted from the device, add the following config option.
CONFIG_BUILD_ARM64_DT_OVERLAY=y
I'm not sure if this is also necessary but I generated a new dtbo.img to flash from the compiled kernel.
You'll need mkdtboimg.py and you can run the following from the out/arch/arm64/boot directory after compilation.
python mkdtboimg.py create dtbo.img dts/*/*.dtbo
You can try to compare arter97 realme X kernel to raw source if it's any helpful.
datty said:
I've made some progress, I can get the kernel to try to boot but I'm stuck at the realme logo without adb to debug what is wrong.
If you're using the kernel config extracted from the device, add the following config option.
CONFIG_BUILD_ARM64_DT_OVERLAY=y
I'm not sure if this is also necessary but I generated a new dtbo.img to flash from the compiled kernel.
You'll need mkdtboimg.py and you can run the following from the out/arch/arm64/boot directory after compilation.
python mkdtboimg.py create dtbo.img dts/*/*.dtbo
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Unfortunately i cannot. even with the config option i am still not able to get it booting.
I have created a repo to reflect how i am building the kernel and making the boot img + dtbo img.
https://github.com/mKenfenheuer/realme-X2Pro-kernel-build
Am i missing something? Also i assume that my generated dtbo.img is bad, as soon as i flash it, i cannot even boot to recovery.
This is a long shot but as @SHiFT! pointed out, maybe comparing the source of @arter97 can help us getthing this mess to boot.
mKenfenheuer said:
Unfortunately i cannot. even with the config option i am still not able to get it booting.
I have created a repo to reflect how i am building the kernel and making the boot img + dtbo img.
https://github.com/mKenfenheuer/realme-X2Pro-kernel-build
Am i missing something? Also i assume that my generated dtbo.img is bad, as soon as i flash it, i cannot even boot to recovery.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Try using the Image-dtb file rather than the plain Image to add to boot.img. You might need to change your make line to the following to get it to generate:
make -j$(nproc --all) O=out CC=clang CLANG_TRIPLE=aarch64-linux-gnu- Image-dtb dtbs
For the dtbo.img, it looks like you're adding *.dtb rather than *.dtbo.
I'll try and upload my build scripts later tonight, I'm at work at the minute and can't get to them.
I've made a little more progress, I've managed to get adb to come up at early boot so I can get a logcat and shell. The kernel looks to be failing on the audio and wireless at the minute from what I can see.
Thanks for the pointer to arter97's kernel. I can see where I've missed adding the external wifi module in, I'll give that a go and hopefully it gets a little further.
datty said:
Try using the Image-dtb file rather than the plain Image to add to boot.img. You might need to change your make line to the following to get it to generate:
make -j$(nproc --all) O=out CC=clang CLANG_TRIPLE=aarch64-linux-gnu- Image-dtb dtbs
For the dtbo.img, it looks like you're adding *.dtb rather than *.dtbo.
I'll try and upload my build scripts later tonight, I'm at work at the minute and can't get to them.
I've made a little more progress, I've managed to get adb to come up at early boot so I can get a logcat and shell. The kernel looks to be failing on the audio and wireless at the minute from what I can see.
Thanks for the pointer to arter97's kernel. I can see where I've missed adding the external wifi module in, I'll give that a go and hopefully it gets a little further.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My kernel is booting now, but wifi and aod are causing issues.
As for now, the zip requires magisk to be flashed first.
I've had some chat with other devs working on our devices kernel in the official telegram group, they're in touch with realme, realme will release their wifi driver from qualcomm soon on their github.
Credits for getting me up to here go to karthick111 from the telegram group.
Realme kernel source code got updated. Any great news?
BlazeMaster64 said:
Realme kernel source code got updated. Any great news?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No. I've imported the changes by realme, things got worse. Now the kernel is not booting anymore.
I'll look into this once i've got more time
mKenfenheuer said:
No. I've imported the changes by realme, things got worse. Now the kernel is not booting anymore.
I'll look into this once i've got more time
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do you think this phone is worth buying over xiaomi redmi k20 pro?
BlazeMaster64 said:
Do you think this phone is worth buying over xiaomi redmi k20 pro?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Of course it's a better phone in almost all terms
Great news! Turns out that the changes by realme actually fix the AoD and the reason why the kernel was not booting was my fault, i still had unfinished changes regarding SafetyNet which got compiled and caused the kernel to panic (i'd do that too if i were him).
So the current status is that now all main functionalities work as i was able to fix wifi too (with a little help of arter97).
All changes can be found in my github repo so feel free to fork!
mKenfenheuer said:
Great news! Turns out that the changes by realme actually fix the AoD and the reason why the kernel was not booting was my fault, i still had unfinished changes regarding SafetyNet which got compiled and caused the kernel to panic (i'd do that too if i were him).
So the current status is that now all main functionalities work as i was able to fix wifi too (with a little help of arter97).
All changes can be found in my github repo so feel free to fork!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good job ,that's a good news Go on
If I may ask after you finish working in the kernel would it be easy to build custom roms with the help of your kernel ,Thanks to you
Hi. Thank you for your kernel. I'm a bit noob about kernel, so it's difficult to me understand kernel's features. What's this kernel different then the stock one?
asusgarb said:
Hi. Thank you for your kernel. I'm a bit noob about kernel, so it's difficult to me understand kernel's features. What's this kernel different then the stock one?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's a work in progress to have a working kernel base for our phone which will then be useful for other people to build their own customized kernel with it.
Is the FP issue an kernel related issue? Or overlay?
natedogg20050 said:
Is the FP issue an kernel related issue? Or overlay?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What do you mean by FP issue? In case you are refering to the issues with GSI's, check out the issues on phhussons github:
https://github.com/phhusson/treble_experimentations/issues/1103
The cause of this is Realme/Oppo not sticking to standards and of course the fact that the in display fp reader is quite new and does not have any generic stock implementation yet.
So TL;DR its not a kernel issue. Phhusson is working on this with Google.
realme x2pro cm rom
---------- Post added at 12:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:17 PM ----------
John Amin said:
Good job ,that's a good news Go on
If I may ask after you finish working in the kernel would it be easy to build custom roms with the help of your kernel ,Thanks to you
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
sir videos