9 replies to this topic

[t0mm13b]

I'd like your input on this

To prevent fragmentation of the kernel source tree... why not combine the kernel tree to be identical across the board... I'm using one version of the kernel tree, Paul of Modaco ROM is using a different version, would be sure Sebastien is using yet a different version... so the disorganization of the source tree can lead to confusion especially for kernel tweakers...

So my question is to the ROM makers:

Is this a viable route to take - have one kernel tree, but with different branches for each of the different ROM's?

It would be more beneficial for the community and more importantly, try eliminate the so called magic word pertaining to Android "fragmentation" of different kernel sources for different ROMs...

[Sebastian404]

t0mm13b, on Jan 14 2011, 17:38, said:

I'd like your input on this

To prevent fragmentation of the kernel source tree... why not combine the kernel tree to be identical across the board... I'm using one version of the kernel tree, Paul of Modaco ROM is using a different version, would be sure Sebastien is using yet a different version... so the disorganization of the source tree can lead to confusion especially for kernel tweakers...

So my question is to the ROM makers:

Is this a viable route to take - have one kernel tree, but with different branches for each of the different ROM's?

It would be more beneficial for the community and more importantly, try eliminate the so called magic word pertaining to Android "fragmentation" of different kernel sources for different ROMs...

I believe that someone (In not good with names) had created a github of the 3(4) versions of the kernel source we got from ZTE, I think they might also of added some of the previous fixes needed to get it to compile... tho I just found out that KK has a different set of fixes that lets it work with TFT screens....

[oh!dougal]

I'm a little surprised by the impression being of rivalry, rather than co-operation.

[kallt_kaffe]

I've posted my fixes several times in this forums both for the 2.1 and the 2.2 kernel. But a github is what we should use but I've been a bit busy with fixing other things in my ROMs and I haven't done any more kernel changes since adding the overclocking and stuff to the 2.2 kernel.

[t0mm13b]

oh!dougal, on Jan 15 2011, 11:16, said:

I'm a little surprised by the impression being of rivalry, rather than co-operation.

Its my thinking exactly... different sources everywhere scattered about....
Some are private, take AR6000 driver in this instance.... no known source for it in a GPL kernel....  

Some such as Modaco ROM has it and not the source published... wonder why?  
Its restrictive and holding back instead of being open which is against the spirit of open source and GPL...

I am amazed at the lack of cohesion and co-operation...  

[gameSTICKER]

t0mm13b, on Jan 15 2011, 23:18, said:

Some such as Modaco ROM has it and not the source published... wonder why?  
Its restrictive and holding back instead of being open which is against the spirit of open source and GPL...

Well about 2.2 ROMs, earlier all devs (including MoDaCo roms) were using prebuilt kernels. Custom kernels are only 2 weeks or so old, we should really give the devs some time to settle down

t0mm13b, on Jan 15 2011, 23:18, said:

I am amazed at the lack of cohesion and co-operation...  

Regarding 2.1 ROMs, I guess there might be some  *ahem*competition*ahem* going on earlier. But now when 2.2 source is here and most of old 2.1 ROMs are abandoned, I'd also request devs to upload their fixed kernels to help newbies learn kernel development and experiment with new patches...

[kallt_kaffe]

Asfaik NO ar6000 drivers has been released by ZTE. I've tried to make several other AR6000 drivers (that I found on the net) work against or kernel without success. We are all using the ar6000.ko kernel modules ZTE compiled and distributed with the ROMs.

[rjm2k]

The guy who setup the github (JonV?) said he was happy to copy everyones changes into there so either send him your changes or ask him to give you access to modify the repository directly.  We really need to keep a consistent source tree, it's bad enough that ZTE lose track of what they have done!

[Matty-p]

rjm2k, on Jan 16 2011, 11:50, said:

The guy who setup the github (JonV?) said he was happy to copy everyones changes into there so either send him your changes or ask him to give you access to modify the repository directly.  We really need to keep a consistent source tree, it's bad enough that ZTE lose track of what they have done!

i actually think we should keep the zte kernals seperate to the costom ones . i have created a github for the custom/fixed kernals pm me and ill send you details to add your kernal to it.

[oh!dougal]

Matty-p, on Jan 16 2011, 12:32, said:

i actually think we should keep the zte kernals seperate to the costom ones . i have created a github for the custom/fixed kernals pm me and ill send you details to add your kernal to it.

There might be something getting lost in translation here, but I thought that the "custom" 2.2 kernels, were ALL compiled from customisations of the source released by ZTE.

And the important thing to do before it gets impossibly complicated, is to put all of those customisations' source code in a proper relation to the original source and to each other.
The only time a branch in the primary pathway NEEDS to occur, is if people knowingly want to go in different directions on specific functionality.

Right now,isn't it fair to say that there is still a bit of basic stabilisation, control and understanding to be done?

Edited by oh!dougal, 16 January 2011 - 01:14 PM.