[Q] Hide Lockscreen Statusbar

Dwyan3Wad3 said:

I tried to follow this guide: http://xdaforums.com/showthread.php?t=2384892

But resulted on a bootloop, restored back to the og android.policy.jar

Could anyone find what code to mod or make a mod to hide it. And nope I'm not using WIdgetLocker because I want the Ripple/Watercolor effects on my Note. Any help or ideas would be welcome thanks!

Click to expand...

Click to collapse

.method public declared-synchronized show(Landroid/os/Bundle;)V

    invoke-virtual {v4, v3}, Landroid/widget/FrameLayout;->setSystemUiVisibility(I)V

    const/4 v3, 0x4

    invoke-virtual {v4, v3}, Landroid/widget/FrameLayout;->setSystemUiVisibility(I)V

TheAxman said:

Great info here, thanks for tip....I will give it a try...been wondering the same thing, how to remove the status bar on the lockscreen.

Click to expand...

Click to collapse

dwitherell said:

Looks like a bit has changed since that source post.

I haven't tested this, but you could try this:

In android.policy -

go to com/android/internal/policy/impl/keyguard/KeyguardViewManager.smali

and look for

Code:

.method public declared-synchronized show(Landroid/os/Bundle;)V

within that method you should find a line that looks like this:

Code:

    invoke-virtual {v4, v3}, Landroid/widget/FrameLayout;->setSystemUiVisibility(I)V

I think if you add const/4 v3, 0x4 right above it you should have a fullscreen lockscreen... not sure, but I think so

so it should look like:

Code:

    const/4 v3, 0x4

    invoke-virtual {v4, v3}, Landroid/widget/FrameLayout;->setSystemUiVisibility(I)V

Let me know if that works, and apologies if it doesn't (keep that backup android.policy handy!)

Click to expand...

Click to collapse

tdunham said:

@dwitherell
This method looked promising however it did not work for our build.
It didn't seem to make any difference.
Anyone get this working properly to remove lockscreen statusbar?

Click to expand...

Click to collapse

dwitherell said:

Out of curiosity - did the edit do anything, or was their no change? I assume this was a 4.3 build yes? If it didn't break anything but elicited no change, perhaps the rabbit hole runs a bit deeper than... or we gotta poke that method with a different forced entry (even though given this it sure seems like 0x4 was the right value).

Click to expand...

Click to collapse