Guest BigBearMDC Posted May 22, 2010 Report Posted May 22, 2010 Bigbear, have you tried contacting them directly? [email protected] or 08000501515 Yap. I also asked for the email address of the Research & Development office that works on the Pulse ... I haven't got an answer yet :rolleyes:
Guest Posted May 22, 2010 Report Posted May 22, 2010 Yap I will have a brief look at that, but I think the cahnce that this will run on our Pulse is even smaller than with the emulator image :D Already saw that on twitter, I follow Paul and AmonRA :rolleyes: So the emulator image didn't work out?
Guest kamikase Posted May 22, 2010 Report Posted May 22, 2010 what we really would need is the interface definition to the different parts of the phone like how to "speak" to the radio ic etc so we ould write our own drivers even for android 3.0 but i guess this is too much to ask because this is the entire blue-print :rolleyes: kase
Guest BigBearMDC Posted May 22, 2010 Report Posted May 22, 2010 So the emulator image didn't work out? Unfortunately not. It just freezes at the (animated) Android logo.
Guest Posted May 22, 2010 Report Posted May 22, 2010 Unfortunately not. It just freezes at the (animated) Android logo. But is it possible for you to replace the drivers of this N1 ROM with drivers from 1.5 U8220? (noob question :rolleyes:)
Guest BigBearMDC Posted May 22, 2010 Report Posted May 22, 2010 what we really would need is the interface definition to the different parts of the phone like how to "speak" to the radio ic etc so we ould write our own drivers even for android 3.0 but i guess this is too much to ask because this is the entire blue-print :rolleyes: kase Wow, hold on! You want to write your own drivers? Sorry, but are you NUTS?? :( That's a little bit too much for only one person I guess (assuming you are in the age between 18 and 25 and not a professional Dev :D). But if you're intersted in that: What I got from the TS driver is that the SW talks to the radio through the I2C bus. Every device has it's own identifier and the communication is package oriented.
Guest BigBearMDC Posted May 22, 2010 Report Posted May 22, 2010 But is it possible for you to replace the drivers of this N1 ROM with drivers from 1.5 U8220? (noob question :D) Nope. At leasat not for me :rolleyes: You would have to patch the already compiled kernel, which is practically impossible.
Guest BigBearMDC Posted May 22, 2010 Report Posted May 22, 2010 (edited) - double post, sorry - Edited May 22, 2010 by BigBearMDC
Guest Posted May 22, 2010 Report Posted May 22, 2010 (edited) Nope. At leasat not for me :rolleyes: You would have to patch the already compiled kernel, which is practically impossible. Too bad, but can you use the ones from the 2.1 ROM that you and Paul put together? (sorry for all the questions, I'm just curious! ^^) Edited May 22, 2010 by Guest
Guest BigBearMDC Posted May 22, 2010 Report Posted May 22, 2010 (edited) Too bad, but can you use the ones from the 2.1 ROM that you and Paul put together? (sorry for all the questions, I'm just curious! ^^) Once the 2.1 kernel source is out we might use it's drivers and patch them into the 2.6.32 kernel. But I think it should work with the .27 kernel drivers too (Android 1.5 kernel). The main functions (and the main differences) are not the drivers but other functions in the kernel. So my thought is that it should not make a big difference which drivers we use, as they nearly stay the same even with never kernel versions. Why should the drivers be changed if the hardware stays the same? But that are just my thoughts... Edited May 22, 2010 by BigBearMDC
Guest kamikase Posted May 22, 2010 Report Posted May 22, 2010 (edited) Wow, hold on! You want to write your own drivers? Sorry, but are you NUTS?? :D That's a little bit too much for only one person I guess (assuming you are in the age between 18 and 25 and not a professional Dev :rolleyes:). But if you're intersted in that: What I got from the TS driver is that the SW talks to the radio through the I2C bus. Every device has it's own identifier and the communication is package oriented. well sometimes i ask ymself if i'm nuts but no this was a seious thing the problem with writing a driver is that you need the definitions of the original desing of the phone the interfaces must have been declared at some point so that the software guys at huawei can write them to that which the hardware guys build having the original code and definitions would be ideal the problem with writing the driver without the interface definition is that one does not know hw they build all of that - the bus system itself dos not give us enough kase ps i'm 28 and in the process of finishing my studies in "telematik" which is a kind of unique mix of computer science (Informatik) and electrical engineering (Elektrotechnik) at graz university of technology i have not writen drivers mself but it can't be that hard if you have the interface or at least the sourcecode of the original drivers the bigger problem for me is that i'm currently writing my thesis so my freetime is very limited ... Edited May 22, 2010 by kamikase
Guest BigBearMDC Posted May 22, 2010 Report Posted May 22, 2010 well sometimes i ask ymself if i'm nuts but no this was a seious thing the problem with writing a driver is that you need the definitions of the original desing of the phone the interfaces must have been declared at some point so that the software guys at huawei can write them to that which the hardware guys build having the original code and definitions would be ideal the problem with writing the driver without the interface definition is that one does not know hw they build all of that - the bus system itself dos not give us enough kase ps i'm 28 and in the process of finishing my studies in "telematik" which is a kind of unique mix of computer science (Informatik) and electrical engineering (Elektrotechnik) at graz university of technology i have not writen drivers mself but it can't be that hard if you have the interface or at least the sourcecode of the original drivers the bigger problem for me is that i'm currently writing my thesis so my freetime is very limited ... Ah okay, I see. So you're 10 years older than me, I'm still attending the HTL (Telecommunication; in the 4th grade). Yeah okay just have a look at the driver section. Some things are pretty well documented. Also, some of the drivers are pretty much stock Android kernel drivers, which haven't been heavily modified. Of course we can't get the whole blueprint, but look at it that way: The basic structure is the same on every device, as (or if) they use the same kernel. You could help us with our Froyo project, if you want :rolleyes:
Guest kamikase Posted May 22, 2010 Report Posted May 22, 2010 Why should the drivers be changed if the hardware stays the same? But that are just my thoughts... the drivers might change if the routines in the kernel that access the drivers changed espacially if they want to make android more update friendly if you write a driver for android until now you write it so you can access yor hardware if you need to change some lines in the original android code it was no problem 2.x has - i think - different ways on how to interface with the drivers, otherwise we could use the 1.5 drivers anyhow but google has a problem right now that there are many different phone on the market and like huawei the companies are slow to bring their phones to the lates version because it brigns them no money: the hardware was already sold and the next phone has the new version anyway - they dont profit from a new software google might want to - and as far as i understood so far - will define the interface to the drivers so that if there is a new android version the driver still has the same interface android <> standarddriver-interface driver<>phone can stay the same then kase ps correct me if im wrong pls always eager to learn something :rolleyes:
Guest BigBearMDC Posted May 22, 2010 Report Posted May 22, 2010 (edited) the drivers might change if the routines in the kernel that access the drivers changed espacially if they want to make android more update friendly ... [snip] ... kase ps correct me if im wrong pls always eager to learn something :rolleyes: I thought this already was the aim of the Android kernel? It's very inefficient to change the kernel interface within a new kernel version. This definetly breaks driver backwards compability. I thought the interfaces stayed the same in the different kernel versions. It should theoretically be possible though to patch the older drivers into a newer kernel, if you just use the new routines. I've heard some time ago that I would be possible to just diff and then patch the .27 and .29 kernel, so we'd have a .27 kernel with .29's functions. Edited May 22, 2010 by BigBearMDC
Guest kamikase Posted May 22, 2010 Report Posted May 22, 2010 Ah okay, I see. So you're 10 years older than me, I'm still attending the HTL (Telecommunication; in the 4th grade). Yeah okay just have a look at the driver section. Some things are pretty well documented. Also, some of the drivers are pretty much stock Android kernel drivers, which haven't been heavily modified. Of course we can't get the whole blueprint, but look at it that way: The basic structure is the same on every device, as (or if) they use the same kernel. You could help us with our Froyo project, if you want :rolleyes: well in that kind of htl you learn everything you need - its a good one i heard i was stupid enough to attend ahs back then - so i needed to catch up a lot at the university helping wih the project is a nice idea but like i said i'm currently writing my thesis and that has priority altough it sounds very intriguing
Guest BigBearMDC Posted May 22, 2010 Report Posted May 22, 2010 well in that kind of htl you learn everything you need - its a good one i heard i was stupid enough to attend ahs back then - so i needed to catch up a lot at the university helping wih the project is a nice idea but like i said i'm currently writing my thesis and that has priority altough it sounds very intriguing Yap I also have some things to do for school that have a high priority. But if we patch the kernel we will add a more detailed description of what this piece of code is doing I guess :rolleyes: Especially in the driver section.
Guest kamikase Posted May 22, 2010 Report Posted May 22, 2010 I thought this already was the aim of the Android kernel? It's very inefficient to change the kernel interface within a new kernel version. This definetly breaks driver backwards compability. I thought the interfaces stayed the same in the different kernel versions. It should theoretically be possible though to patch the older drivers into a newer kernel, if you just use the new routines. I've heard some time ago that I would be possible to just diff and then patch the .27 and .29 kernel, so we'd have a .27 kernel with .29's functions. i thought so too but what is it that keeps all the phones back in the stoneage of 1.5 and 1.6 i read somewhere (i think it was futurezone or heise - sry both german sites) that there are significant differences in the routines of the different versions if its possible to pack the old drivers into the new kernel then what is the problem for huawei ??? they could have at least released a vanilla version for the 8230 if its that easy as far as i understood google wants to simplify this process with one of teh next versions - i'm not shure if froyo is the coming standard or if its the next version it might also be that if that starts for real with froyo then huawei might weit for a few weeks and finish the next software with froyo that elimniates also the problem with the small memory since 2.2 has a2sd build-in and the comunity can build the next version themselves ... which pulse-source do you have? 2.1 or 1.5?
Guest BigBearMDC Posted May 22, 2010 Report Posted May 22, 2010 i thought so too but what is it that keeps all the phones back in the stoneage of 1.5 and 1.6 i read somewhere (i think it was futurezone or heise - sry both german sites) that there are significant differences in the routines of the different versions if its possible to pack the old drivers into the new kernel then what is the problem for huawei ??? they could have at least released a vanilla version for the 8230 if its that easy as far as i understood google wants to simplify this process with one of teh next versions - i'm not shure if froyo is the coming standard or if its the next version it might also be that if that starts for real with froyo then huawei might weit for a few weeks and finish the next software with froyo that elimniates also the problem with the small memory since 2.2 has a2sd build-in and the comunity can build the next version themselves ... which pulse-source do you have? 2.1 or 1.5? Okay, I see. So the drivers need to be patched too. I have the .27 QMR kernel source (from Huawei) and the .32 kernel source (from code aurora) + Android 1.5, 1.6, 2.0 and 2.1 source
Guest kamikase Posted May 22, 2010 Report Posted May 22, 2010 Okay, I see. So the drivers need to be patched too. I have the .27 QMR kernel source (from Huawei) and the .32 kernel source (from code aurora) + Android 1.5, 1.6, 2.0 and 2.1 source i beleave so the .27 QMR is te one where the drivers vor vibrate etc are missing, right? well the rest is working so that might be a start if you are right and there is a way to integrate the drivers into .32 the functionality of 2.1 r6 might be portet to 2.2 otherwise it wil become difficult and timeconsuming :rolleyes:
Guest DanWilson Posted May 22, 2010 Report Posted May 22, 2010 (edited) /off BigBear, are you really here? Because on my laptop, it says that in Vienna its about 1:05AM... Thats late. Very late. :rolleyes: I mean, I tired now, but I dont know why I'm still awake. Meh. /on I really wish you guys good luck with this, and you always know you have a beta tester. (Unless theres a 75.9% chance it'll break my phone...) And I'd help if I knew how to code... Oh well... [i think I posted right as Bobo went away... lol] Edited May 22, 2010 by DanWilson
Guest kamikase Posted May 22, 2010 Report Posted May 22, 2010 (edited) /off you are right its past 1am here in austria *tryinghardtokeepmyeyesopen* ... see you tomorow :rolleyes: Edited May 22, 2010 by kamikase
Guest BigBearMDC Posted May 22, 2010 Report Posted May 22, 2010 /off BigBear, are you really here? Because on my laptop, it says that in Vienna its about 1:05AM... Thats late. Very late. :D I mean, I tired now, but I dont know why I'm still awake. Meh. /on I really wish you guys good luck with this, and you always know you have a beta tester. (Unless theres a 75.9% chance it'll break my phone...) And I'd help if I knew how to code... Oh well... [i think I posted right as Bobo went away... lol] I'm still here :( But I'll leave now. See you guys tomorrow :rolleyes: Best regards, BigBear
Guest peanut_rvm Posted May 23, 2010 Report Posted May 23, 2010 So, if you have a kernel source, we basicly only have to port the drivers no? And as far as i know, this has been done A LOT for some more "mainstream" andorids... btw, here http://forum.huawei.com/jive4/thread.jspa?...&orderStr=9 is some source for the grabs.... i'm gonna have a look at it now....
Guest Simon O Posted May 23, 2010 Report Posted May 23, 2010 So, if you have a kernel source, we basicly only have to port the drivers no? And as far as i know, this has been done A LOT for some more "mainstream" andorids... btw, here http://forum.huawei.com/jive4/thread.jspa?...&orderStr=9 is some source for the grabs.... i'm gonna have a look at it now.... That's the 1.5 source which, I believe, is missing some bits.
Guest Ashbeard Posted May 23, 2010 Report Posted May 23, 2010 http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=686631 Does the 2.2 update for the Nexus One help in any way?
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now