Welcome to XDA

Search to go directly to your device's forum

Register an account

Unlock full posting privileges

Ask a question

No registration required
Post Reply

[PROJECT] Kernel 3.4.x For Galaxy 3

OP hillbeast

10th May 2012, 10:25 PM   |  #31  
DeHuMaNiZeD's Avatar
Senior Member
Flag jastrebarsko
Thanks Meter: 1,775
 
3,025 posts
Join Date:Joined: Feb 2011
More
X8 is a little better...
11th May 2012, 01:33 AM   |  #32  
hillbeast's Avatar
OP Recognized Developer
Flag Dunedin
Thanks Meter: 6,753
 
2,688 posts
Join Date:Joined: Feb 2011
Donate to Me
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom3q

Well, I wouldn't even take seriously option 1. There is no point in using the same poor code and just updating rest of the kernel (version doesn't really matter). First, this would copy all the problems of original kernel to new one. Second, this will add much more work with fixing all the problems with porting the old code to new code base and possibly create even more problems than the original kernel had. So this is likely to be just a waste of time.

Option 3 also adds unnecessary work, as there is already pretty good support of S5P series SoCs in the mainline, so there is no need to rewrite this from scratch.

IMHO the only reasonable option is option 2, i.e. using latest mainline as code base (android-3.4 branch of android/kernel-common is a good candidate), while extending s5p64x0 with support for s5p6442 (according to Samsung website all the models from S5P64xx line are compatible, except differences in peripheral set of course), using original kernel as a reference how the hardware is arranged (registers, memory map, some specific tricks and workarounds for hardware bugs and, what's most important, board-specific configuration, like GPIOs, EINTs, voltage regulator settings, etc.) and trying to reuse as much as possible from my spica-3.0 sources (e.g. battery driver, s5k4ca camera sensor driver and most probably several others).

Okay I have scrapped all the current work on option 1 and switched to option 2. I was realising it after I started that this was going to be problems.

At least I didn't get too far into it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by D3HuM4NiZ3D

X8 is a little better...

Well this is a G3 forum so...
11th May 2012, 02:43 AM   |  #33  
headers.chennai's Avatar
Member
Flag Greater Chennai
Thanks Meter: 10
 
98 posts
Join Date:Joined: Nov 2011
Donate to Me
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillbeast

2: adapt the code for another mach (s3c64xx or s5p-64x0) (may or may not work as we don't know how similar our chipset is to these other ones - it could be close or it could be completely different... thanks Samsung for giving us informations...)

Noob Ques: Are we not supposed to look at chipset similarity before starting tweaks?
11th May 2012, 07:02 AM   |  #34  
hillbeast's Avatar
OP Recognized Developer
Flag Dunedin
Thanks Meter: 6,753
 
2,688 posts
Join Date:Joined: Feb 2011
Donate to Me
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by headers.chennai

Noob Ques: Are we not supposed to look at chipset similarity before starting tweaks?

The problem we have is that Samsung never officially released a datasheet for the S5P6442 and as a result we don't have any information we can go by when we work with it. We have to go by trial and error, debugging the old kernel, or reading the old source code.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using XDA
11th May 2012, 07:23 AM   |  #35  
Senior Member
Thanks Meter: 8
 
139 posts
Join Date:Joined: Dec 2011
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillbeast

The problem we have is that Samsung never officially released a datasheet for the S5P6442 and as a result we don't have any information we can go by when we work with it. We have to go by trial and error, debugging the old kernel, or reading the old source code.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using XDA

Given that this is an older phone, would they release that if we begged them?

I know they want to sell new phones, but I hardly think that a few older phones isn't going to kill their already huge market share.
11th May 2012, 07:28 AM   |  #36  
hillbeast's Avatar
OP Recognized Developer
Flag Dunedin
Thanks Meter: 6,753
 
2,688 posts
Join Date:Joined: Feb 2011
Donate to Me
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spitlebug

Given that this is an older phone, would they release that if we begged them?

I know they want to sell new phones, but I hardly think that a few older phones isn't going to kill their already huge market share.

Considering they haven't released it when we asked ages ago and don't reply to communications, I'd say its never going to happen. I wouldn't be surprised if the documents don't exist anymore.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using XDA
11th May 2012, 07:36 AM   |  #37  
cdesai's Avatar
Recognized Developer
Flag IN YOUR HEAD
Thanks Meter: 4,012
 
2,283 posts
Join Date:Joined: Jan 2011
Donate to Me
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillbeast

Considering they haven't released it when we asked ages ago and don't reply to communications, I'd say its never going to happen. I wouldn't be surprised if the documents don't exist anymore.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using XDA

Yea, they removed all the links to s5p6442 from their site ages ago.

http://www.samsung.com/global/busine...=835&parameter[0][parameterId]=242&parameter[0][specValue]=ARM%2011%20Series%20(1176)

No s5p6442, only s3c6410, and s5p64x0


EDIT : Found some interesting info here
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail...st/000156.html

Quote:

For example, s5p6442 and s5pc110 have different arm core, but internal devices are very similar.

Otherwise, although s5p6440 and s5p6442 are in the same family, architecture and similar names, internal devices are very different.

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to cdesai For This Useful Post: [ View ]
11th May 2012, 07:51 AM   |  #38  
Senior Member
Thanks Meter: 40
 
216 posts
Join Date:Joined: Nov 2011
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdesai

Yea, they removed all the links to s5p6442 from their site ages ago.

http://www.samsung.com/global/busine...=835&parameter[0][parameterId]=242&parameter[0][specValue]=ARM%2011%20Series%20(1176)

No s5p6442, only s3c6410, and s5p64x0


EDIT : Found some interesting info here
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail...st/000156.html

well hes talking about linux kernel code and our chipset AND he is from samsung. What if we contact him? Perhaps we could get some help from him? His email is mentioned at the end of the post too..
11th May 2012, 09:12 AM   |  #39  
hillbeast's Avatar
OP Recognized Developer
Flag Dunedin
Thanks Meter: 6,753
 
2,688 posts
Join Date:Joined: Feb 2011
Donate to Me
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdesai

Yea, they removed all the links to s5p6442 from their site ages ago.

http://www.samsung.com/global/busine...=835&parameter[0][parameterId]=242&parameter[0][specValue]=ARM%2011%20Series%20(1176)

No s5p6442, only s3c6410, and s5p64x0


EDIT : Found some interesting info here
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail...st/000156.html

With reading that, I'm now facing the choice, do I use s5p64x0 as the base or do I use s5pc110 which the guy says is closer to our SoC. What do you guys reckon?

Sent from my GT-I9100 using XDA
11th May 2012, 10:35 AM   |  #40  
Recognized Developer
Flag Warsaw
Thanks Meter: 1,615
 
358 posts
Join Date:Joined: May 2011
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillbeast

With reading that, I'm now facing the choice, do I use s5p64x0 as the base or do I use s5pc110 which the guy says is closer to our SoC. What do you guys reckon?

Sent from my GT-I9100 using XDA

I'd still say that s5p6442 should be almost identical to other SoCs from s5p64x0 family, but I'll try to look into it today, by comparing sources of s5pcxxx and s5p64x0 from mainline and s5p6442 from G3 kernel.
Last edited by tom3q; 11th May 2012 at 08:08 PM.

The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to tom3q For This Useful Post: [ View ]
Post Reply Subscribe to Thread
Previous Thread Next Thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes