Android AOSP

[Guest 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

[Guest Quu]

agh. HAVE NOT AHVEN.

[Guest 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.

[Guest sebbo90]

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

[Guest 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 of outdated information) states that x64 is experimental and x86 is to be prefered: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.android.com/source/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 January 23, 2011 by FelixL

[Guest t0mm13b]

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 of outdated information) states that x64 is experimental and x86 is to be prefered: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.android.com/source/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.....

[Guest fonix232]

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.android.com/source/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 :lol:

[Guest 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 :lol:

[Guest fonix232]

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 :lol:

[Guest FelixL]

But, a sponge can fast suck in everything :lol:

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 :)

[Guest Phoenix Silver]

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

[Guest t0mm13b]

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

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

[Guest Phoenix Silver]

ho haven't seen this post

all answers are here

thank you :lol:

[Guest 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.

[Guest rjm2k]

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?

[Guest hecatae]

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

[Guest kallt_kaffe]

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.

[Guest Tom G]

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).

[Guest kallt_kaffe]

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?

[Guest rjm2k]

..

Edited January 24, 2011 by rjm2k

[Guest tcpaulh]

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?

I think it was surfaceflinger

[Guest hecatae]

..

https://github.com/jvaughan/san-francisco-kernel

https://github.com/jvaughan/san-francisco-k...5329c740474eff5

[Guest hecatae]

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.

6.) Compiling Android 2.3.1

To build a final release on a 32bit machine, we must modify some files and use the target option "user" (default is "eng", which is only a debug build for the emulator).

Attention

following code must be run in root of your repo:

source build/envsetup.sh

find . -name '*.mk' | xargs sed -i 's/-m64//g'

export TARGET_BUILD_VARIANT=user

lunch

make[/codebox]


http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.p...mp;postcount=10


it is also needed to comment a line in /build/core/main.mk for stop error


$(warning ************************************************** **********)

$(warning You are attempting to build on a 32-bit system.)

$(warning Only 64-bit build environments are supported beyond froyo/2.2.)

$(warning ************************************************** **********)

#$(error stop) <--just add #

Edited January 24, 2011 by hecatae

[Guest fonix232]

6.) Compiling Android 2.3.1

To build a final release on a 32bit machine, we must modify some files and use the target option "user" (default is "eng", which is only a debug build for the emulator).

Attention

following code must be run in root of your repo:

source build/envsetup.sh

find . -name '*.mk' | xargs sed -i 's/-m64//g'

export TARGET_BUILD_VARIANT=user

lunch

make[/codebox]

http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.p...mp;postcount=10

I haven't been into this build-stuff too much, so I wasn't looking for a solution (and I'm using x64 Ubuntu any ways :)) that's why I wrote my last info from Cyanogen. That time there were no patch :lol:

[Guest hecatae]

I haven't been into this build-stuff too much, so I wasn't looking for a solution (and I'm using x64 Ubuntu any ways :)) that's why I wrote my last info from Cyanogen. That time there were no patch :lol:

just hoping all the people who only have 32 bit cpus realise they can get on board with development.

has anyone released a gingerbread build based on codeaurora yet, want to see if it boots