234 replies to this topic

[Rotmann]

Tom G, on Jan 11 2011, 09:23, said:

The RIL problems have nothing to do with kernel source (I don't know why I bother repeating this, no one listens).

sorry. Could you explain then why we are not able to get special ROMs? Like CM or MIUI.

[mrflibbles]

We were listening. (Or at least I was). From what I gleamed from your posts : Android's Radio Interface Layer (RIL) provides an abstraction layer between Android telephony services (android.telephony) and radio hardware. You can see from the diagram that the Kernel and the RIL are quite separate.



While the Kernel is open-source large parts of Android can be modified without releasing source or information. I think from reading normally the hardware customisation is done only in the vendor RIL (system/libs/libril_vendor.so) but on the Blade for some reason ZTE have modified the telephony framework (java/android/telephony). This makes telephony and RIL interfaces for the Blade different to AOSP used by CM.

If we could work out why and how they changed the telephony framework then we could modify AOSP but that is a difficult task unless ZTE developers give us the information.

Is that right?

I'd be curious to know more details about how you know the telephony framework has changed? (i.e. things just don't compile?)

Edited by mrflibbles, 11 January 2011 - 10:23 AM.

[cobhc]

That sounds about right from what I've gleamed from Tom as well. I'm sure he tried another branch also rather than AOSP and still had problems.

[rjm2k]

Had anyone investigated qcrilhook.jar and qcnvitems.jar, maybe the changes to the framework are minimal and simply call through to those jars?

[mrflibbles]

There is an interesting (albeit high level) presentation from Qualcomm which includes RIL here : (Starts at page 23)

http://docs.google.c...a...ppEaA&pli=1

Edited by mrflibbles, 11 January 2011 - 12:47 PM.

[bagge]

Has ZTE officially refused to disclose that code or are we just assuming they wouldnt?

[rjm2k]

mrflibbles, on Jan 11 2011, 10:14, said:

I'd be curious to know more details about how you know the telephony framework has changed? (i.e. things just don't compile?)

You can de-compile the framework, I guess someone has done this and spotted changes.  Someone posted that they were working on differencing the zte framework against AOSP but nothing since.

[cobhc]

If anyone can tell me how to go about diff'ing the two frameworks then I could put some time into doing it.

[IronDoc]

rjm2k, on Jan 11 2011, 14:08, said:

You can de-compile the framework, I guess someone has done this and spotted changes.  Someone posted that they were working on differencing the zte framework against AOSP but nothing since.

Apparently there are too many changes and so this doesn't work (just repeating what I've read). Or it's very difficult...
There was some reason anyway :/

[rjm2k]

cobhc, on Jan 11 2011, 13:37, said:

If anyone can tell me how to go about diff'ing the two frameworks then I could put some time into doing it.

You can use dex2jar to convert the .dex files inside the apk files  to .class files, then use jd-gui to view the source.  Jd-gui has a feature to save the source files but this crashes making it difficult to get hold of all of the source in a form suitable to differencing.  NB also that due to optimisations performed when compiling the source, the sequence of statements in the decompiled version may be incorrect, however the same incorrect sequence is likely to be found in the decompiled stock version and zte version so differencing will ignore that unless there are actual differences in which case you would have to use judgement to work out the correct flow.

Another option is to use APKTool to decompile to smali (I think that's the name), it the "assembly" language used by the "java"/Dalvik virtual machine (I think), I haven't worked out how to get that output yet though.

In order to compare you obviously have to get the stock framework, I did this by getting from the appropriate AOSP branch for FRF91 (the version of android on the blade) "android2.2-rel1" or something similar ( I can't remember off hand).

We don't really need ALL changes that ZTE made, just the ones that make RIL work, these are thought to be in Phone.apk and the framework jar file.

Edited by rjm2k, 11 January 2011 - 02:20 PM.

[MDCFan]

rjm2k, on Jan 11 2011, 14:19, said:

Another option is to use APKTool to decompile to smali (I think that's the name), it the "assembly" language used by the "java"/Dalvik virtual machine (I think), I haven't worked out how to get that output yet though.

apktool.bat d Phone.apk

After that a folder named "Phone" will be created in the current directory and you will find smali code in "smali" folder.

[cobhc]

Is it a very time consuming process? Has noone just had enough time to do it?

[rjm2k]

MDCFan, on Jan 11 2011, 14:38, said:

apktool.bat d Phone.apk

After that a folder named "Phone" will be created in the current directory and you will find smali code in "smali" folder.

Thanks, I assume it works for Jar files too?

[isambard]

mrflibbles, on Jan 11 2011, 11:14, said:

We were listening. (Or at least I was). From what I gleamed from your posts : Android's Radio Interface Layer (RIL) provides an abstraction layer between Android telephony services (android.telephony) and radio hardware. You can see from the diagram that the Kernel and the RIL are quite separate.



While the Kernel is open-source large parts of Android can be modified without releasing source or information. I think from reading normally the hardware customisation is done only in the vendor RIL (system/libs/libril_vendor.so) but on the Blade for some reason ZTE have modified the telephony framework (java/android/telephony). This makes telephony and RIL interfaces for the Blade different to AOSP used by CM.

If we could work out why and how they changed the telephony framework then we could modify AOSP but that is a difficult task unless ZTE developers give us the information.

Is that right?

I'd be curious to know more details about how you know the telephony framework has changed? (i.e. things just don't compile?)

actually, i would also be interested to know what exactly the problem is.

i assume that the vendor RIL library is not compiled into the kernel (for GPL reasons) but rather in a separate library and that we can use the pre-compiled library with our own modified kernels. ditto for the ril daemon.

the last link is then the application framework and how this interfaces the ril daemon. i guess it's not as simple as compiling the rest of android and substituting the telephony and gsm from the ZTE versions otherwise someone would have done this already. am i right?

then is it a case of having to write a layer to translate either the telephony part or gsm part?

[Cirno]

Frankish, on Jan 10 2011, 20:43, said:

Yeah CM7 is based on 2.3... We won't get ports of any other roms until we get RIL working properly.

On a side note where is your username from?

Me?
Well my username is a name from an ice fairy called Cirno, why ?

[gusthy]

Tom G, on Jan 11 2011, 09:23, said:

The RIL problems have nothing to do with kernel source (I don't know why I bother repeating this, no one listens).

[joyfun]

I don't know much about how RIL work
Some people mentioned Phone.apk , AFAIK in flibblesan latest rom he used the AOSP dailer. I don't know if he complied himself . I think he is used RIL with aosp code.

[sebbo90]

Would it be too difficult then to compile our own version of ril so that it would work with aosp? Or could we not use the ril version from the HTC legend roms as they both use the same chipset?

[pellen]

rjm2k, on Jan 11 2011, 16:07, said:

Thanks, I assume it works for Jar files too?

That's correct

[rjm2k]

[quote name='MDCFan' post='1555812' date='Jan 11 2011, 14:38']apktool.bat d Phone.apk

I just get this error on ubuntu, probably wrong version of java, maybe I'll try windows instead - nope that gives the same error.

Exception in thread "main" java.lang.UnsupportedClassVersionError: Bad version number in .class file
at java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass1(Native Method)
at java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass(ClassLoader.java:620)
at java.security.SecureClassLoader.defineClass(SecureClassLoader.java:124)
at java.net.URLClassLoader.defineClass(URLClassLoader.java:260)
at java.net.URLClassLoader.access$100(URLClassLoader.java:56)
at java.net.URLClassLoader$1.run(URLClassLoader.java:195)
at java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method)
at java.net.URLClassLoader.findClass(URLClassLoader.java:188)
at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoader.java:306)
at sun.misc.Launcher$AppClassLoader.loadClass(Launcher.java:268)
at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoader.java:251)
at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClassInternal(ClassLoader.java:319)

Edited by rjm2k, 11 January 2011 - 07:03 PM.