I cant seem to find anywhere to changed those settings, they are certainly not where they were on my SG2 custom roms.
[Kernel][24/04] Perseus
- Thread starter AndreiLux
- Start date
I cant seem to find anywhere to changed those settings, they are certainly not where they were on my SG2 custom roms.
LOL yes i know you need 3rd party software to do this now. I think Andreilux soon is going to make an application that goes with his kernel that will be able to do the tweaks that his kernel allows, for instance setcpu will allow you to overclock CPU i havent tested Stweaks yet but that allows GPU and cpu tweaks and much more, the reason custom roms have it is they pre-install it with the rom
Last edited:
I'm pretty interested in the audio tweaks:
Is there a guide as to how to configure it?
Really hoping the audio would improve on this device.
Thanks for the kernel!! :good:
Is there a guide as to how to configure it?
Really hoping the audio would improve on this device.
Thanks for the kernel!! :good:
Edit.
Scratch that, I just had a brain failure moment, should've got more sleep last night. The differences would probably be in regards to 3G frequencies. Lte hardware would be the same. I see no reason why the kernel wouldnt work exactly the same as standard I9305.
Sent from my GT-I9305T using xda app-developers app
Scratch that, I just had a brain failure moment, should've got more sleep last night. The differences would probably be in regards to 3G frequencies. Lte hardware would be the same. I see no reason why the kernel wouldnt work exactly the same as standard I9305.
Sent from my GT-I9305T using xda app-developers app
Last edited:
In hobart im getting 8MB/s by 2.2MB/s
I'' go for a drive into Hobart and do some tests now on the Kernel and report back
as 4g dont reach me atm
but i dont know what i should be expecting
Last edited:
It _IS_ interesting that http://opensource.samsung.com/reception/receptionSub.do?method=search&searchValue=9305 has different source code for the 9305 and 9305T - downloading both now to see what's different.
Do we have access to the original radio/kernel?
I don't have any DATA on my phone with this one. but i do have reception. just no web
I don't have any DATA on my phone with this one. but i do have reception. just no web
I took a backup of boot.img on my 9305T before flashing... let me know if this would help narcarsiss
---------- Post added at 04:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:23 PM ----------
Just confirmed that mobile data still works for need on i9305T, I had only checked WiFi previously
Sent from my GT-I9305T using xda premium
---------- Post added at 04:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:23 PM ----------
Just confirmed that mobile data still works for need on i9305T, I had only checked WiFi previously
Sent from my GT-I9305T using xda premium
All good it works i just forgot to backup my Access point detail once put them back in i am fine
Last edited:
I checked the 9305T sources and they are indeed different than the 9305 ones, but not in the way you'd think. I'm already compiling this kernel right now with a merge of 9300 and N7100 sources and didn't touch the 9305 ones. Anyway the defconfig doesn't differ between the two, so there is no difference in the end product. So I can confirm it works. I still find it stupid to proclaim it works and flash it on a device without prior checking of the code, in this case it worked, in 95% of other cases it doesn't. But I hope you knew the risk beforehand.
I think we all did. we just dont care that much as the phone can be brought for $380. and someone has to take all the risks blind folded.:highfive:
$380 lol where in the world are you getting your price the cheapest I see it online is around $730 Unlocked/No contract
Sent from my GT-I9305 using xda app-developers app
---------- Post added at 10:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:37 PM ----------
The only difference is probably the "t" version doesn't have all the lte frequencies but only the one Telstra uses OR if not then I know Telstra got rid off the 2100mhz 3g frequency maybe it's just missing this.
Sent from my GT-I9305 using xda app-developers app
Sent from my GT-I9305 using xda app-developers app
---------- Post added at 10:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:37 PM ----------
The only difference is probably the "t" version doesn't have all the lte frequencies but only the one Telstra uses OR if not then I know Telstra got rid off the 2100mhz 3g frequency maybe it's just missing this.
Sent from my GT-I9305 using xda app-developers app
Last edited:
Mines telstra phone cost me $384 on a 60$ plan (there is always a catch)
Also a side note:
After bench marking this kernel against my stock kernel phone this one is giving me in quadrant constant 200 points slower
5600 points; Stock Kernel untouched phone not Overclocked
5400 points; SS v1.1 Rom with this kernel not Overclocked
^ overclocked @ 1704Mhz i get 6600
GT-I9305T
LOL OHHHHHH ye ye Ofcourse if your talking about contract, which means you are locked in.... they are not stupid by the end of the contract you definitley have paid for the phone and more
There is no way you will get one for $380 Unlocked without contract
Thats strange I get a constant 7000-7200 score on when i am over clocked @ 1704mhz and around 6000-6200 Normal
But I am on XXALI5 Base - De-bloated/Unbranded , Deodexed/Zipaligned. Not sure if that makes a difference
And since you got 200 more stock then with the custom rom I am thinking if u had the custom Rom debloated/ zipaligned/deodexed with Perseus kernel and OC 1.7ghz you will get closer to 7000 according to the scores you wrote.
There is no way you will get one for $380 Unlocked without contract
Thats strange I get a constant 7000-7200 score on when i am over clocked @ 1704mhz and around 6000-6200 Normal
But I am on XXALI5 Base - De-bloated/Unbranded , Deodexed/Zipaligned. Not sure if that makes a difference
And since you got 200 more stock then with the custom rom I am thinking if u had the custom Rom debloated/ zipaligned/deodexed with Perseus kernel and OC 1.7ghz you will get closer to 7000 according to the scores you wrote.
Last edited:
we need our own general and q&a thread. I dont like the fact that we have to post in amongst i9300 threads. Can we all ask the mods this? The more of uz the better.
What we want?
Our own I9305 general thread and q&a thread or atleast our own q&a thread. Lets all msg the mods please
Sent from my GT-I9305 using xda app-developers app
What we want?
Our own I9305 general thread and q&a thread or atleast our own q&a thread. Lets all msg the mods please
Sent from my GT-I9305 using xda app-developers app
Last edited:
Hi AndreiLux,
can you compile the FM radio module as external .ko module ?
i want try to load it in the kernel and try with the app Spirit FM
or have you already tried ?
if the module compile well only in the i9300 kernel version, you can compile the i9300 version with the vermagic modified for the i9305 kernel. i want try.
can you compile the FM radio module as external .ko module ?
i want try to load it in the kernel and try with the app Spirit FM
or have you already tried ?
if the module compile well only in the i9300 kernel version, you can compile the i9300 version with the vermagic modified for the i9305 kernel. i want try.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky
- Poll
Top Liked Posts
-
There are no posts matching your filters.
-
104Identical kernel to the i9300 one. Only difference is:
- CMA device memory allocation is gone as we don't need the hacks used in it for larger memory, 2GB with the default setting will suffice.
- You apparently have no FM radio.
The port is trivial and everything else should work flawlessly.
Please refer to the I9300 thread for changelogs, bug-reports and other issues. Kernel itself will be posted here.26
I've told you guys the i9300 will always be first to get new versions since that's what I have to develop on, test, and use. Please refrain from such posts because I will update here as well (i9305 users are first in line before the 7 different Note 2 versions...). I also use the i9300 as a testbed for fast feedback in case of bugs, and that's why you people for example never get non-hotfixed versions first because things will already have been debugged on the i9300.
So, with that in mind, uploading 30.1 now for here. Please read the changelog in the main thread.9Basic, not very scientific UV test
Hi Guys,
I finished my two days of UV and non UV testing.
TL;DR: UV seems to help a decent amount, I think it's worth the hassle.
What did I undervolt?
I spent weeks undervolting my CPU, GPU, internal, and memory components. I then went through each component, and used the ABB interface to see if I could further undervolt. On the CPU I could undervolt a little bit further, on the GPU and internal I could get a decent amount of extra UV, on the memory component I could gain no further UV with ABB. Please note I'm unsure about the GPU undervolting - there appears to be a bug with the GPU frequency or volt_table interfaces, more on that HERE and HERE.
Click HERE to see my full undervolting, but for a quick idea, here are my average undervolts for each component:
CPU: 155mV
GPU: 147mV
Internal: 175mV
Memory: 150mV
Not bad for an ASV3 chip
How did I test?
Both days I took it off the charge at midnight, and left it off the charge for the next 18 hours. Used BetterBatterStats to monitor everything, I tried to use the phone in exactly the same way both days - about 1h30m screen on time, which included about 20mins of candy crush saga, both days push syncing an exchange account from 8am - 6pm, all google services on push (google now disabled), about the same SMSs, same amount of wifi and 4G, I think I was pretty consistent.
I wish I had more time to knock off a few more tests, but my i9505 came in, and I've already left it in the box for 2 days.. I can't resist anymore
Results!
Day 1: undervolting applied.
Code:Since 17 h 59 m 12 s Level lost [%]: Bat.: -70% (87% to 17%) [3.9%/h] Deep Sleep (): 12 h 31 m 30 s (45090 s) Ratio: 68.1% Awake (): 5 h 27 m 42 s (19662 s) Ratio: 30.4% Screen On (): 1 h 32 m 30 s (5550 s) Ratio: 8.6% No or Unknown Signal (): 15 h 24 m 29 s (55469 s) Ratio: 85.7% Moderate Signal (): 3 m 28 s (208 s) Ratio: 0.3% Good Signal (): 1 m 44 s (104 s) Ratio: 0.2% Screen dark (): 1 h 8 m 44 s (4124 s) Ratio: 6.4% Screen dimmed (): 2 m 25 s (145 s) Ratio: 0.2% Screen medium (): 19 m 10 s (1150 s) Ratio: 1.7% Screen light (): 41 s (41 s) Ratio: 0.1% Screen bright (): 1 m 27 s (87 s) Ratio: 0.1% ================ Kernel Wakelocks ================ "PowerManagerService" (): 1 h 34 m 12 s (5652 s) Cnt:(c/wc/ec)6225/0/0 8.7% "mdm_hsic_pm0" (): 1 h 7 m (4020 s) Cnt:(c/wc/ec)8091/427/0 6.2% "wlan_rx_wake" (): 42 m 18 s (2538 s) Cnt:(c/wc/ec)2272/0/2273 3.9% "wlan_ctrl_wake" (): 37 m 40 s (2260 s) Cnt:(c/wc/ec)847/0/847 3.5% "alarm_rtc" (): 29 m 3 s (1743 s) Cnt:(c/wc/ec)3037/0/487 2.6% "hsicctl0" (): 16 m 34 s (994 s) Cnt:(c/wc/ec)4687/0/4687 1.5% "alarm" (): 16 m 30 s (990 s) Cnt:(c/wc/ec)4864/16/0 1.5%
Day 2: stock voltages.
Code:Since 17 h 55 m 26 s Level lost [%]: Bat.: -85% (89% to 4%) [4.7%/h] Deep Sleep (): 12 h 21 m 57 s (44517 s) Ratio: 68.2% Awake (): 5 h 33 m 28 s (20008 s) Ratio: 31.0% Screen On (): 1 h 32 m 52 s (5572 s) Ratio: 8.6% No or Unknown Signal (): 15 h 23 m 46 s (55426 s) Ratio: 85.9% Moderate Signal (): 30 s (30 s) Ratio: 0.0% Good Signal (): 4 m 38 s (278 s) Ratio: 0.4% Screen dark (): 47 m 28 s (2848 s) Ratio: 4.4% Screen dimmed (): 27 m 14 s (1634 s) Ratio: 2.5% Screen medium (): 16 m 59 s (1019 s) Ratio: 1.6% Screen bright (): 1 m 9 s (69 s) Ratio: 0.1% ================ Kernel Wakelocks ================ "PowerManagerService" (): 1 h 39 m 57 s (5997 s) Cnt:(c/wc/ec)5937/0/0 9.3% "mdm_hsic_pm0" (): 1 h 9 m 1 s (4141 s) Cnt:(c/wc/ec)8297/552/0 6.4% "wlan_rx_wake" (): 46 m 14 s (2774 s) Cnt:(c/wc/ec)1902/0/1902 4.3% "wlan_ctrl_wake" (): 32 m 40 s (1960 s) Cnt:(c/wc/ec)866/0/865 3.0% "alarm_rtc" (): 28 m 7 s (1687 s) Cnt:(c/wc/ec)3281/0/377 2.6% "hsicctl0" (): 17 m 5 s (1025 s) Cnt:(c/wc/ec)4627/0/4626 1.6% "alarm" (): 15 m 6 s (906 s) Cnt:(c/wc/ec)5053/10/0 1.4%
So, both days had the same:
- Total time on
- Screen on time
- PowerManagerService wakelocks
- mdm_hsic_pm0 wakelocks
- signal variance
The only real difference is the screen brightness, but I don't think this is enough to worry about.
Battery level, however, the UVed config used 3.9% battery per hour, whereas the stock voltage config used 4.7% battery per hour. Over the 18 hours, this meant that with UV I had an extra 15% battery than I did with no UV.
Caveat: I do think I used the phone slightly harder on the stock voltage test day, but only right at the end, i used google maps with GPS for about a minute, and I drove to the shops which I didn't do the day before. This may have made a % or two difference, but not 15%. To balance that a bit, I cut the test short on the second (no UV) test day, the overal % lost is probably about right.
Yes, this is with 36.2, but with this fix I posted to make it act like 36.3.8
Here you go. Sorry for not keeping up to date too much but some irritating people in this section and the minuscule user-base of this device makes me a bit lazy in releasing things.Hi Andrei,
Any chance we can get the mods from alpha26 in the i9300 kernel in this one?
Thanks
