34 replies to this topic

[sebbo90]

Before I get told I know that ril isn't working so technically ahving an aosp isn't much use, but this is more for teaching purposes so that I can undertsand it better asnd then eventually create my own roms. I ahve set up the android sdk and eclipse and these all work fine (this is for android 2.2.1). I am however finding it difficult to then create a rom for the blade from this. Could someone point me in the direction of guide which is easily tranferable to the blade or perhpas give me some pointers. I am ok on linux and can do some java, but I am trying to teach myself from stracth about android.

thanks

[Quu]

agh. HAVE NOT AHVEN.

[fonix232]

From the SDK you can't create a ROM. It is for SOFTWARE (application) development!
You need to download and compile the Android Source code yourself (for that you need Ubuntu x64, read the Android Source page for details).
But, you need a lot of work to build everything right. First of all, setting up the device tree isn't the easiest thing to do.

[sebbo90]

fonix232, on Jan 23 2011, 11:39, said:

From the SDK you can't create a ROM. It is for SOFTWARE (application) development!
You need to download and compile the Android Source code yourself (for that you need Ubuntu x64, read the Android Source page for details).
But, you need a lot of work to build everything right. First of all, setting up the device tree isn't the easiest thing to do.

Thanks, i'm looking into it now

[FelixL]

Regarding x64:
Afaik this info is not right. I've built Froyo myself on 32bit x86 Ubuntu 10.10, and yes, it did throw an error like this before it worked, but with a little googling I've found that the failure was something else (something wrong with java I think, but I don't remember it).

Also, the source-page (witch contains a lot(!) of outdated information) states that x64 is experimental and x86 is to be prefered:
http://source.androi...e/download.html


Just wanted to say it's possible on 32 bit, but I think 64 bit should be preferred if you can use it, although the site tells you something else.

Edited by FelixL, 23 January 2011 - 03:41 PM.

[t0mm13b]

FelixL, on Jan 23 2011, 15:39, said:

Regarding x64:
Afaik this info is not right. I've built Froyo myself on 32bit x86 Ubuntu 10.10, and yes, it did throw an error like this before it worked, but with a little googling I've found that the failure was something else (something wrong with java I think, but I don't remember it).

Also, the source-page (witch contains a lot(!) of outdated information) states that x64 is experimental and x86 is to be prefered:
http://source.androi...e/download.html
Just wanted to say it's possible on 32 bit, but I think 64 bit should be preferred if you can use it, although the site tells you something else.

Gingerbread requires a x64bit dev system to build....

I do recall seeing a patch somewhere on google's code site where the patch changes the make files to use 32bit java.....

[fonix232]

FelixL, on Jan 23 2011, 18:39, said:

Regarding x64:
Afaik this info is not right. I've built Froyo myself on 32bit x86 Ubuntu 10.10, and yes, it did throw an error like this before it worked, but with a little googling I've found that the failure was something else (something wrong with java I think, but I don't remember it).

Also, the source-page (witch contains a lot(!) of outdated information) states that x64 is experimental and x86 is to be prefered:
http://source.androi...e/download.html
Just wanted to say it's possible on 32 bit, but I think 64 bit should be preferred if you can use it, although the site tells you something else.

As it's said, the latest branch (gingerbread) what is checked out by default needs an x64 build system. The Android Source site is so outdated it refers to Android 1.5 infos!
I suggest to take a look at the CyanogenMod wiki, it tells you everything you need

[FelixL]

Okay, it's possible that you really need x64 for Gingerbread. I thought it could be the same thing as with Froyo, and yes, it could have been something with some makefile that needed to be changed. My brain is just like a sponge today. Full off holes

[fonix232]

FelixL, on Jan 23 2011, 19:12, said:

Okay, it's possible that you really need x64 for Gingerbread. I thought it could be the same thing as with Froyo, and yes, it could have been something with some makefile that needed to be changed. My brain is just like a sponge today. Full off holes

But, a sponge can fast suck in everything

[FelixL]

fonix232, on Jan 23 2011, 18:19, said:

But, a sponge can fast suck in everything

Yeah, and if it's under pressure, it will lose everything as fast as it was sucked up. I've got exams next week, I hope the pressure doesn't get to high

[Phoenix Silver]

is compile the android kernel same way than compile a linux kernel ?

[t0mm13b]

Phoenix Silver, on Jan 23 2011, 20:53, said:

is compile the android kernel same way than compile a linux kernel ?

Have a look at this thread - it might help you!

[Phoenix Silver]

ho haven't seen this post
all answers are here
thank you  

[Tom G]

I would recommend starting from codeaurora source. The AOSP source will not boot without modifications (or a modified kernel). You should be able to get a codeaurora rom booting without any modifications, you just need the right device config.

[rjm2k]

Tom G, on Jan 24 2011, 11:36, said:

I would recommend starting from codeaurora source. The AOSP source will not boot without modifications (or a modified kernel). You should be able to get a codeaurora rom booting without any modifications, you just need the right device config.

Is aurora easier to get going than CM?  I assumed that because CM supports the Legend, which uses the same chipset as the blade that it would also be a good place to start?

[hecatae]

rjm2k, on Jan 24 2011, 12:41, said:

Is aurora easier to get going than CM?  I assumed that because CM supports the Legend, which uses the same chipset as the blade that it would also be a good place to start?

codeaurora have a gingerbread release available for MSM7627

[kallt_kaffe]

Tom G, on Jan 24 2011, 12:36, said:

I would recommend starting from codeaurora source. The AOSP source will not boot without modifications (or a modified kernel). You should be able to get a codeaurora rom booting without any modifications, you just need the right device config.

Tell me more. I just failed booting an rather generic AOSP 2.2 that I built. Can't even get into adb to see what's happening. I didn't expect it to work but I hoped for it to at least get into some kind of upside down mode showing something.

[Tom G]

kallt_kaffe, on Jan 25 2011, 01:13, said:

Tell me more. I just failed booting an rather generic AOSP 2.2 that I built. Can't even get into adb to see what's happening. I didn't expect it to work but I hoped for it to at least get into some kind of upside down mode showing something.

codeaurora has support for the 2G VMSPLIT used in the blade kernel. There is an option to set for 2G split in the device config.

With AOSP you need to either use a kernel with a 3G vmsplit (and lose half the ram) or add 2G support. The same for cyanogenmod.

For adb to work you will need /sbin/usbconfig for the kernel version you are using (and include it in the init script).

[kallt_kaffe]

Tom G, on Jan 24 2011, 15:26, said:

codeaurora has support for the 2G VMSPLIT used in the blade kernel. There is an option to set for 2G split in the device config.

With AOSP you need to either use a kernel with a 3G vmsplit (and lose half the ram) or add 2G support. The same for cyanogenmod.

For adb to work you will need /sbin/usbconfig for the kernel version you are using (and include it in the init script).

Seems like a good idea to switch to Code Aurora then. I'm using the JJ boot.img so I should have the /sbin/usbconfig in place but I didn't add the USB device id line in build.prop so I suppose it might not work without it.

However with since I'm not using a kernel compiled with 3G vmsplit it's propably the main cause for it not to boot. Oh, well...

Btw, I haven't come that far yet but I suppose I will need to solve the 180 degree rotation issue when/if I get that far. How did you get around that problem? Did you modify PhoneWindowManager.java?

[rjm2k]

..

Edited by rjm2k, 24 January 2011 - 04:32 PM.