Jump to content

Well check this out developers


Guest Chingizzka
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don't understand LG. They are upgrading Gingerbread branch despite of supporting us or upgrading to ICS at least...

Ram is the biggest issue - their proprietary optimus crap ui + ics won't fit smoothly in mere 301 mb of dram nor would they ditch their launcher and bloats to give us upgrades, in short - we are on our own. Am happy that at least cm nightlies are available for us and guys like you, stan, gellamar and hectate are trying to make things better (sorry if I missed some one)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://pastebin.com/nYNph9YZ

Where I'am so far, current bug is with LGE TEST MODE asking what board is this, so wont build so far. but it looks like a complete source for the E430

lge/factory/lg_diag_testmode.c:28:10: error: #include expects "FILENAME" or <FILENAME>
lge/factory/lg_diag_testmode.c: In function 'CheckHWRev':
lge/factory/lg_diag_testmode.c:173: error: implicit declaration of function 'lge_get_board_revno'
lge/factory/lg_diag_testmode.c: In function 'LGF_TestModeAccelCal':
lge/factory/lg_diag_testmode.c:2033: error: 'lge_pcb_rev' undeclared (first use in this function)
lge/factory/lg_diag_testmode.c:2033: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
lge/factory/lg_diag_testmode.c:2033: error: for each function it appears in.)
lge/factory/lg_diag_testmode.c:2033: error: expected ';' before 'hw_version'
lge/factory/lg_diag_testmode.c:2063: error: 'hw_version' undeclared (first use in this function)
lge/factory/lg_diag_testmode.c:2070: error: 'LGE_REV_10' undeclared (first use in this function)
make[2]: *** [lge/factory/lg_diag_testmode.o] Error 1
make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
[/code]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where is included lg_diag_testmode.h? Do you know the functionality of this functions? Maybe we could remove related files.

Edited by crazybyte
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where is included lg_diag_testmode.h? Do you know the functionality of this functions? Maybe we could remove related files.

currently comparing lge/factory/lg_diag_testmode.c from the e430 sources to the e400 sources...

of course we dont actually need it as CM does without

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://pastebin.com/nYNph9YZ

Where I'am so far, current bug is with LGE TEST MODE asking what board is this, so wont build so far. but it looks like a complete source for the E430

Seems like you should set CONFIG_LGE_BOARD_HEADER_FILE in defconfig.

Edited by StanTRC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like you should set CONFIG_LGE_BOARD_HEADER_FILE in defconfig.

agreed,

currently looking at:

git clone https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/msm -b android-msm-mako-3.4-jb-mr1
and
https://github.com/CyanogenMod/lge-kernel-p700.git

as rmcc has recently added e610 (L5) support to the p700 (L7) kernel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've built CM 10.1 and tried to boot it with this kernel but I haven't had any luck so far. Tried different command line parameters for kernel, rebuilding ramdisk, messing with the kernel but still can't boot. Probably the boards differ too much. I don't have jtag or UART board to see why it doesn't boot.

as rmcc has recently added e610 (L5) support to the p700 (L7) kernel

He just merged e610 source provided by lg with p700 source also provided by lg.

I don't understand LG. They are upgrading Gingerbread branch despite of supporting us or upgrading to ICS at least...

It's simple, really. At the time of the release of L3, the only difference between L5, L7 and L3 was that L5 and L7 had more ram and a bigger screen at a much higher price. To justify the price difference, L3 has to have an "old" Android version while L5 and L7 has to have a "newer" Android version.

Now they release L3 II and the only difference with L3 is that L3 II has more ram. So to show potential buyers that L3 II is "better" and they have to upgrade, LG overclocked the kernel to 1000Mhz and release L3 II with Gingerbread.

Edited by DeathArrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

well even if it doesnt build atleast we'll know whether any additional changes were made ;)

Edited by nikufellow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.