Guest dr.flo Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 (edited) But I have found that the resulting 6.2 rom I am using now is not as stable as the 6.1.1 rom I was using. I will definitely replace it with the next version of 6.2 you upload and test that I must admit I never ran 6.1.1 for more than a few minutes, because I already had my usual apps set up on 6.2 and it was working for me. If 6.1.1 really works better, we can focus on that, no problem. Edited February 25, 2012 by dr.flo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest twrock Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 (edited) I must admit I never ran 6.1.1 for more than a few minutes, because I already had my usual apps set up on 6.2 and it was working for me. If 6.1.1 really works better, we can focus on that, no problem. I really can't say for sure which rom works "better". Maybe there is no difference at all. What I saw using the 6.2 that I tried to fix the GPS issue on (and might not have gotten things right) was that in one day of use ADWLauncher twice FC'd and there seemed to be a few periodic slowdowns/momentary freezes, as if there was some instability. Since I had not noticed similar issues in many days of use of 6.1.1, that made 6.2 "feel" not as stable. But one person reporting on "feeling" does not make it so. In any case, I will certainly consider distributing a simple mod of this rom to replace TXG. It is definitely a better base to work with. Thanks again for you work on it. I believe this rom will replace FTB as my daily use rom. The battery life has been very good, and that was the main reason I was staying with FTB. I really enjoy the little "extras" that CyanogenMod roms include over the stock Froyo rom.<br> Edited February 26, 2012 by twrock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest twrock Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 I'm currently running CM6bootimg-Starkos691TomRD-528def_swap30.zip on CM 6.2 and did not yet notice any issues... Do I assume correctly that the boot.img's in v.3 of the roms you just uploaded are still the original and not this modified boot.img? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dr.flo Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 Do I assume correctly that the boot.img's in v.3 of the roms you just uploaded are still the original and not this modified boot.img? Correct. I've personally not yet felt the need for overclocking - I believe we mainly miss RAM ;) It looks like wifi is making progress with kernel .32... I might prepare some kernel .32 based boot image relatively soon. That one would "automatically" have OC support since all recent builds of that kernel have it. Some files inside the rom must also be adjusted when exchanging kernels. I'm thinking of update.zips that do this Offering kernel .32 as an alternative boot.img to choose from would allow us to evaluate stability and battery life of both kernels based on the same rom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest twrock Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 Correct. I've personally not yet felt the need for overclocking - I believe we mainly miss RAM ;) It looks like wifi is making progress with kernel .32... I might prepare some kernel .32 based boot image relatively soon. That one would "automatically" have OC support since all recent builds of that kernel have it. Some files inside the rom must also be adjusted when exchanging kernels. I'm thinking of update.zips that do this Offering kernel .32 as an alternative boot.img to choose from would allow us to evaluate stability and battery life of both kernels based on the same rom. Yes, I was just reading the .32 kernel thread. Exciting news! It looks very promising. I agree that the main problem is lack of sufficient ram. I typically run at 528 no matter what the kernel is capable of doing. But a big reason for that is the high value I place in battery life. What are the max and default speeds in the .32 kernel/boot.img currently? I have found that I can not even get a max 748 kernel to get past the initial steps in the boot (first second or two of the boot process), and unless the default speed is set at 614 or lower in a max 691 rom, my phone won't complete the boot without hanging. I've seen other CHT8000 users also mention that their CPU's can't handle the higher speed kernels. But far be it from me to accuse Huawei of dumping their weakest CPU's on the Taiwanese market. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dr.flo Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 What are the max and default speeds in the .32 kernel/boot.img currently? I have found that I can not even get a max 748 kernel to get past the initial steps in the boot (first second or two of the boot process), and unless the default speed is set at 614 or lower in a max 691 rom, my phone won't complete the boot without hanging. I've seen other CHT8000 users also mention that their CPU's can't handle the higher speed kernels. Max is 748. I don't know about default speed. Isn't this set in ramdisk? For cm6, we would have to combine the kernel with the current ramdisk, so default speed would be as is now. Is the cpu always clocked at max speed during boot? Maybe there is a way to change this in ramdisk? Just because the kernel supports a certain clock rate would not mean it is forced to use it... there might be some scaling governor setting which affects clock rates used during boot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest desalesouche Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 i am running cm6.2-v3 with CM6bootimg-Starkos691TomRD-528def_swap30.zip .oc maximum(691)..i have for the moment no issue like it did with cm6.2-v2(asking pincode every 3 sec) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pier11 Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 ..I might prepare some kernel .32 based boot image relatively soon. ... I'm thinking of update.zips that do this I'm afraid it might not work as expected this why. When I just combined some time ago cm6-u8220-20120206-v2 with .32 kernel I ended up with very slow graphics subsystem: Fps2D: 12 Neocore: 9 Can one confirm? My theory is still .32 kernel should be placed into CM tree on compilation process. Anyway cm7 compiled this way doesn't have any issues with graphics. (neither does um840) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dr.flo Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 I'm afraid it might not work as expected this why. When I just combined some time ago cm6-u8220-20120206-v2 with .32 kernel I ended up with very slow graphics subsystem: Fps2D: 12 Neocore: 9 Can one confirm? My theory is still .32 kernel should be placed into CM tree on compilation process. Anyway cm7 compiled this way doesn't have any issues with graphics. (neither does um840) did you watch logcat? I once tried the same and noticed many copybit errors making ui terribly slow. After replacing copybit lib with origin u8150 version, i subjectively had normal performance. I do not remember having done benchmarks. That's what I meant with the rom needing adjustment. I know of - copybit (u8150 version works) - sensors (same) - ar6000.ko - compcache adjustments needed (ramzswap vs zram), need to use updated script from cm7, cm6 does not know zram. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pier11 Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 I once tried the same and noticed many copybit errors making ui terribly slow. After replacing copybit lib with origin u8150 version, i subjectively had normal performance. I do not remember having done benchmarks. I'm thinking that copybits can depend on kernel functions. So if compiled with .29 kernel makes it incompatible with .32?.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dr.flo Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 but on cm7 roms, the same copybit lib works with both kernels. But for me it's ok when I know the u8150 version fixes it for cm6. I can live with not knowing why in this case ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest twrock Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 Max is 748. I don't know about default speed. Isn't this set in ramdisk? For cm6, we would have to combine the kernel with the current ramdisk, so default speed would be as is now. Is the cpu always clocked at max speed during boot? Maybe there is a way to change this in ramdisk? Just because the kernel supports a certain clock rate would not mean it is forced to use it... there might be some scaling governor setting which affects clock rates used during boot. If the max of the kernel is 748, I might not be able to boot it at all, even if I adjust the "default" speed in the ramdisk. Yes, the max speed default can be adjusted in the ramdisk in init.qcom.rc, but I think that is not immediately adjusted at the beginning of the boot sequence. It seems to me that for a brief moment, the CPU is running at the full speed allowed by the kernel (748), prior to the speed being lowered by the init.qcom.rc max speed limit. I have never been able to boot a 748 kernel. But I can boot a 691 kernel, if it is quickly brought down to 614 max default. So that is why I no longer try to work with 748 kernels. I can't even test them. I can work with and use 691 kernels, as long as I lower the default speed to 614 in init.qcom.rc. In any case, I can extract Pier's .32 boot.img after he is done with his fixes and try to set the speeds to something I can use, and just test it to see if it will work for me. But if not, I've got a very nice CM6.1.1 rom mod based on your v3 running right now with a boot.img that is working quite adequately for my needs. Thanks again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pier11 Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 ... I can extract Pier's .32 boot.img after he is done with his fixes and try to set the speeds to something I can use, and just test it to see if it will work for me. you can go ahead with .32 kernel test already. There are no show stoppers in there. The last issue was even not with kernel itself but wifi driver. The kernel successfully powers at least two published roms: - cm7.2 - um840 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dr.flo Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 (edited) you can expect a cm6 kernel .32 update being uploaded in let's say the next 12 hours... Maybe I promised a bit too much. I have rild crashes when changing to kernel .32..... When I tested kernel .32 some weeks ago, I had no SIM card in the phone. Most likely that's why I didn't notice anything that time. For now it's not working out of the box, will have a look at ramdisk differences between cm7 / cm6... Edited February 26, 2012 by dr.flo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dr.flo Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 work on this will be delayed until tomorrow. Then I'll have a chance to look at my older experiments with kernel .32 + cm6 again (data is on another PC). For now, RIL is not working, rotation is not working. But I remember I had rotation working with .32 back then. About RIL I'm not sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest twrock Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 you can expect a cm6 kernel .32 update being uploaded in let's say the next 12 hours... Maybe I promised a bit too much. I have rild crashes when changing to kernel .32..... When I tested kernel .32 some weeks ago, I had no SIM card in the phone. Most likely that's why I didn't notice anything that time. For now it's not working out of the box, will have a look at ramdisk differences between cm7 / cm6... Your mention of rild reminded me of this. In CM roms, for some reason there is a common error where this line in build.prop gets split in two: rild.libargs=-d /dev/smd0 I think it is split because of the space. I have no idea what it does, but I spent enough time in the past researching it before concluding it was an error that should be corrected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dr.flo Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 (edited) here it is: kernel 32 for cm6 Can be used for both cm 6.2 and 6.1.1 variants. copybit / sensors / compcache / ril works. new wifi driver integrated. Edited February 27, 2012 by dr.flo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest twrock Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 (edited) here it is: kernel 32 for cm6 Can be used for both cm 6.2 and 6.1.1 variants. copybit / sensors / compcache / ril works. new wifi driver integrated. Great! I will test it now. Thanks. OC or not? What max speed? Any bugs you know of? I'm curious. "In theory" what are the advantages of using .32 over .29 kernel for these CM6 roms? What are the performance advantages of the newer kernel? Edited February 27, 2012 by twrock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dr.flo Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 Great! I will test it now. Thanks. OC or not? What max speed? Any bugs you know of? I'm curious. "In theory" what are the advantages of using .32 over .29 kernel for these CM6 roms? What are the performance advantages of the newer kernel? It is pier11's kernel as is. I took the one that came with latest cm7 (because of the led compat, and no tethering options in cm6 anyways). With OC, max 748. So you might have trouble booting it. I don't know what the particular advantages are, but it is a froyo kernel after all, i.e. the native kernel for cm6. I don't know about bugs specific to that kernel. Have you ever tried copying the cpu clock related settings from init.qcom.rc close to the beginning of init.rc? I believe that will be executed first. It might help your boot problems... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest skykilla Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 dr.flo Could not you have to rebuild the contacts so as to be able to store contacts on SIM card as stock Froy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest twrock Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 (edited) It is pier11's kernel as is. I took the one that came with latest cm7 (because of the led compat, and no tethering options in cm6 anyways). With OC, max 748. So you might have trouble booting it. I don't know what the particular advantages are, but it is a froyo kernel after all, i.e. the native kernel for cm6. I don't know about bugs specific to that kernel. Have you ever tried copying the cpu clock related settings from init.qcom.rc close to the beginning of init.rc? I believe that will be executed first. It might help your boot problems... Wow! I've not seen anything like this before! :blink: This is exciting. Yes, it boots for me. It defaults to 528 and boots just fine. But the default speed does not seem to be set in init.qcom.rc or init.rc, at least not that I can find. So maybe Pier put that into the kernel somehow. I don't know what he did, but it works perfectly as-is. (At least so far.) Previously there was always a minimal amount of time during the boot that the speed was at the ultimate max available in the kernel, but somehow Pier has done it differently. Also, I'm looking at the CPU throttling with SetCPU, and for once, things look like they are working as they should be. Using the .29 boot.img's I've had up to now, basically the speed just jumps back and forth between the max and min speeds with extremely little time spent at any speed in between. With Pier's .32 kernel/ramdisk settings, it is logging quite a bit of time at the intermediate speeds. That seems much more "normal" to me. Great job done by you and Pier (and all the other contributors). Thanks much. You guys have done fantastic work! Edited February 28, 2012 by twrock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dr.flo Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 I think you've just become a friend of kernel .32 ;) It can be expected that this one will not have orientation freeze. Now if it turns out that battery life is equal or better than with the old kernel, I think cm6 has finally got the kernel it deserves... With Pier's .32 kernel/ramdisk settings, it is logging quite a bit of time at the intermediate speeds. Ramdisk is identical to normal cm6, as ramdisk depends on android version, just kernel zImage replaced ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dr.flo Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 dr.flo Could not you have to rebuild the contacts so as to be able to store contacts on SIM card as stock Froy does this mean cm6 does not have this feature, but um840 does? I don't remember having tried this. You could try exchaning Contacts.apk.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pier11 Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 (edited) here it is: kernel 32 for cm6 Can be used for both cm 6.2 and 6.1.1 variants. copybit / sensors / compcache / ril works. new wifi driver integrated. tested graphics briefly on 6.2 - looks good: Fps2D: 29 Neocore: 23+ on non overclocked device. (That are normal results). Radio also works fine. On a side note, I looked at shop on ZTE Avail (320*480, msm7227) and it put us to shame: fps2d: 61, Neocore: 53. Looks Adreno 200 is capable of something. Or we are missing something, as I cited previously, from user comments on Market for Fps2D app, for comparable to us devices like G1 score reported were like in 60 region... EDIT: link to user comments added Edited February 27, 2012 by pier11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dr.flo Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 On a side note, I looked at shop on ZTE Avail (320*480, msm7227) and it put us to shame: fps2d: 61, Neocore: 53. Looks Adreno 200 is capable of something. Or we are missing something, as I cited previously, from user comments on Market for Fps2D app, for comparable to us devices like G1 score reported were like in 60 region... (radio always worked - it was a bug in boot image yesterday, typo in "qcom", not executing init.qcom.rc) Shame on us for our low scores. But aren't the scores we get with CM6 / um840 the same as we get with stock eclair? Anyone willing to install 1.5 / 1.6 (yes there is 1.6, telekom de update) and do benchmarks there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now