Post Reply

3.4 kernel bring-up

12th June 2014, 11:43 AM   |  #1  
kabaldan's Avatar
OP Recognized Developer
Flag Prague
Thanks Meter: 3,244
 
1,389 posts
Join Date:Joined: Dec 2009
Donate to Me
More
By KitKat update for xt897/asanti being canceled, we're missing at least:
updated bootladers (sbl1,sbl2,sbl3 and appsboot), updated trustzone (not sure if that is an issue at this point), updated modem firmware.

Fortunately, at least the device tree for asanti seems to be ready and working fine, apart from not being handled by JB bootloader.

As a base, I'm using https://github.com/CyanogenMod/andro...n/tree/cm-11.0 that has been updated by dhacker for support of KitKat updated Razr HD/M.

To circumvent dt not being handled, I'm using appended dtb:
CONFIG_ARM_APPENDED_DTB=y
CONFIG_ARM_ATAG_DTB_COMPAT=y

Device tree partition check revealed that my device is p2 or p2b revision (https://github.com/MotorolaMobilityL...-asanti-p2.dts and https://github.com/MotorolaMobilityL...asanti-p2b.dts are identical), so I'm using msm8960-asanti-p2.dtb appended to zImage.

Next issue is that bootloader is supposed to add dynamic data on runtime in addition to static ones loaded from dtb.

To get the display working, I've added:
Code:
	chosen {
		/* mipi_mot_cmd_auo_qhd_430 */
		mmi,panel_name = [6d6970695f6d6f745f636d645f61756f5f7168645f34333000];
	};
to msm8960-asanti-p2.dts.

That's where I'm currently. The next step is to add additional entries we're missing there (e.g. "mmi,mbmprotocol" etc.).

Regarding bootloaders, I see another issue - memory configuration.
There's failing shared mem allocation in mmi_unit_info_init:
https://github.com/CyanogenMod/andro...ard-mmi.c#L433
That memory block is supposed to be reserved by sbl3, as indicated by https://github.com/MotorolaMobilityL...fdf190b32784af

Also, this commit https://github.com/MotorolaMobilityL...4b9452ece04d16 indicates that Moto has done some tests also with older modem firmware, at least at some point...
Last edited by kabaldan; 13th June 2014 at 12:21 AM.
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to kabaldan For This Useful Post: [ View ]
12th June 2014, 02:08 PM   |  #2  
skeevydude's Avatar
Recognized Contributor
Flag Hot Springs
Thanks Meter: 2,862
 
2,850 posts
Join Date:Joined: Feb 2012
More
If you need any logs or whatever from something not a Q, hit me up. Maybe something from my Atrix HD will help you out, I dunno -- AHD is stuck with JB until Q3 this year, so we're interested in this too.
17th June 2014, 02:00 PM   |  #3  
mrvek's Avatar
Senior Member
/home
Thanks Meter: 376
 
533 posts
Join Date:Joined: Feb 2011
Just 2 questions:

1) that moto test for older modem firmware with newer kernels, patch for asanti device tree (in which they state that device mostly works) might indicate that moto actually has updated bootloaders, etc, which we will never see?
2) this thread in development section is best left for dev disscusson? Ie, no potentially irritating stupid suggestions/questions/ideas/thoughts? (I have to ask)
17th June 2014, 11:03 PM   |  #4  
fatihx's Avatar
Member
Thanks Meter: 3
 
43 posts
Join Date:Joined: Dec 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrvek

Just 2 questions:

1) that moto test for older modem firmware with newer kernels, patch for asanti device tree (in which they state that device mostly works) might indicate that moto actually has updated bootloaders, etc, which we will never see?
2) this thread in development section is best left for dev disscusson? Ie, no potentially irritating stupid suggestions/questions/ideas/thoughts? (I have to ask)

http://forum.xda-developers.com/show....php?t=2778330
23rd June 2014, 12:07 AM   |  #5  
kabaldan's Avatar
OP Recognized Developer
Flag Prague
Thanks Meter: 3,244
 
1,389 posts
Join Date:Joined: Dec 2009
Donate to Me
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrvek

Just 2 questions:

1) that moto test for older modem firmware with newer kernels, patch for asanti device tree (in which they state that device mostly works) might indicate that moto actually has updated bootloaders, etc, which we will never see?
2) this thread in development section is best left for dev disscusson? Ie, no potentially irritating stupid suggestions/questions/ideas/thoughts? (I have to ask)

1 - yes, I'm pretty sure that test builds for asanti exist somewhere in moto labs from the time before 4.4 upgrade for Photon Q cancellation, with updated bootloader images and stuff, that we will unfortunately never see (I'm not very good in social hacking, so I don't expect myself to be able to get access to that internal stuff).

I also noticed this commit - https://github.com/MotorolaMobilityL...10f7c7b64f95dc - they did not have enough asanti p2 hw revision devices for testing, so they needed some fixes to be able to test on an older p1 revision of the hardware...

VijayKumar Gn surely wasted some of his time on 4.4 bring-up for asanti before it got cancelled...

2 - It depends on the level of stupidity Even some very bright ideas may appear stupid at first sight, but can get proved to be great in the end.

At this point, I'm still not able get the BP going, it goes to crash and restart loop as soon as it's brought out of reset by the PIL (peripheral image loader).

I've pushed the kernel commits I use so far here in cm-11.0-3.4kJBbl branch:
https://github.com/nadlabak/android_...-11.0-3.4kJBbl

It should go with something like this kernel setting in BoardConfig.mk:
Code:
# Inline kernel building
TARGET_KERNEL_SOURCE := kernel/motorola/msm8960dt-common
TARGET_KERNEL_CONFIG := msm8960_mmi_defconfig
TARGET_KERNEL_VARIANT_CONFIG := msm8960_mmi_xt897_defconfig
TARGET_KERNEL_SELINUX_CONFIG := msm8960_mmi_selinux_defconfig
BOARD_KERNEL_IMAGE_NAME := zImage-dtb
BOARD_KERNEL_CMDLINE := console=ttyHSL0,115200,n8 androidboot.hardware=qcom user_debug=31 msm_rtb.filter=0x3F ehci-hcd.park=3 maxcpus=2 vmalloc=400M androidboot.write_protect=0 zcache androidboot.selinux=permissive androidboot.modelno=XT897 product=asanti_c androidboot.device=asanti_c androidboot.secure_hardware=1
BOARD_KERNEL_BASE := 0x80200000
BOARD_KERNEL_PAGESIZE := 2048
BOARD_MKBOOTIMG_ARGS := --ramdisk_offset 0x02200000
BOARD_USERDATAIMAGE_PARTITION_SIZE := 12884901888
Last edited by kabaldan; 23rd June 2014 at 12:24 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to kabaldan For This Useful Post: [ View ]
23rd June 2014, 09:32 AM   |  #6  
kabaldan's Avatar
OP Recognized Developer
Flag Prague
Thanks Meter: 3,244
 
1,389 posts
Join Date:Joined: Dec 2009
Donate to Me
More
OK, good news, I've got the BP running fine now, under 3.4 kernel.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Screenshot_2014-06-23-10-21-47.png
Views:	521
Size:	97.6 KB
ID:	2813174  
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to kabaldan For This Useful Post: [ View ]
23rd June 2014, 11:48 AM   |  #7  
Senior Member
Thanks Meter: 17
 
210 posts
Join Date:Joined: Jul 2012
Just a little off-topic:
Do we have some indicators to differentiate between p1 and p2 devices?
23rd June 2014, 12:40 PM   |  #8  
niko99's Avatar
Senior Member
Thanks Meter: 137
 
311 posts
Join Date:Joined: May 2008
Thumbs up
Quote:
Originally Posted by kabaldan

OK, good news, I've got the BP running fine now, under 3.4 kernel.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAMAAAAAAAAZINNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGG

cant wait for some first beta/test/kernel for a try ! thanks very good news very !
23rd June 2014, 01:39 PM   |  #9  
kabaldan's Avatar
OP Recognized Developer
Flag Prague
Thanks Meter: 3,244
 
1,389 posts
Join Date:Joined: Dec 2009
Donate to Me
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loader009

Just a little off-topic:
Do we have some indicators to differentiate between p1 and p2 devices?

You can check e.g. /proc/device-tree/System@0/EMUDetection@0 on your device.
If it contains Gpio-dmb-ppd@0, your device is P2.
If Gpio-dmb-ppd@0 is missing, but Gpio-id-en@0 and Gpio-id@0 are there, your device is P1.

It would be useful for me to know if there's actually a P1 device running CM11 out there somewhere.
Last edited by kabaldan; 23rd June 2014 at 02:44 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to kabaldan For This Useful Post: [ View ]
23rd June 2014, 03:50 PM   |  #10  
Senior Member
Thanks Meter: 17
 
210 posts
Join Date:Joined: Jul 2012
Ok, P2 also here.

Is it possible that P1 devices are prototypes?
Someone here had a prototype, I wouldn't wonder if it was a P1 device.

Post Reply Subscribe to Thread
Previous Thread Next Thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Top Threads in Photon Q 4G LTE Original Android Development by ThreadRank