Active Topics

 


Page 3 of 5 12 3 45
Reply
Thread Tools
wmarone is offline wmarone
2010-03-09 , 00:37
Posts: 1,746 | Thanked: 2,100 times | Joined on Sep 2009
#21
Originally Posted by craftyguy View Post
kernels that are not supported by Nokia's closed-source device firmware
I don't think the bootloader gives a damn, and any device firmware simply needs to have it provided to the kernel at build time. The firmware doesn't care about the kernel, after all.
 

The Following User Says Thank You to wmarone For This Useful Post:
Termana's Avatar
Termana is offline Termana
2010-03-09 , 01:25
Posts: 32 | Thanked: 74 times | Joined on Sep 2009 @ South Australia
#22
There seems to be a lot of naysayers in this thread. It is completely possible to port the changes up from the .28 kernel to a .33 kernel. If you read my signature, you can see I've been able to make most of the features of the n810 work with my .33 kernel, and the n810 is not mainlined, and it is not properly supported in linux-omap. If I owned an n900, I would be working on this, but I don't :P which is why I'm working on the n810 kernel.

Still, a .28 kernel isn't too bad - remember Android devices only run .29
__________________
Follow me @Termana on Twitter
Last edited by Termana; 2010-03-09 at 01:28.
 

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Termana For This Useful Post:
craftyguy is offline craftyguy
2010-03-09 , 01:31
Posts: 455 | Thanked: 278 times | Joined on Dec 2009 @ Oregon, USA
#23
Originally Posted by wmarone View Post
I don't think the bootloader gives a damn, and any device firmware simply needs to have it provided to the kernel at build time. The firmware doesn't care about the kernel, after all.
Ok, then go for it
 
b-man's Avatar
b-man is offline b-man
2010-03-09 , 01:50
Posts: 549 | Thanked: 502 times | Joined on Feb 2008 @ Bowling Green Ohio (united states)
#24
Originally Posted by Termana View Post
There seems to be a lot of naysayers in this thread. It is completely possible to port the changes up from the .28 kernel to a .33 kernel. If you read my signature, you can see I've been able to make most of the features of the n810 work with my .33 kernel, and the n810 is not mainlined, and it is not properly supported in linux-omap. If I owned an n900, I would be working on this, but I don't :P which is why I'm working on the n810 kernel.

Still, a .28 kernel isn't too bad - remember Android devices only run .29
That's exactly my point

Sure the kernel my not be supported entierly by upstream linux-omap, but that doesn't mean we can't host our own kernel source. And sure newer kernels may not provide all of the drivers - but keep in mind that all of the kernel drivers/modules in maemo5 are open source, so there's nothing really stoping you from applying driver patches from the current kernel to newer kernels.
__________________
I'm an advanced user and a bit of a modder.
----------------------------------------------
I am involved with Mer, Deblet, and NITdroid.
My ports/creations/hacks: GNOME (for Deblet), Cdeb2», Ubuntu, playable flash games in the "Get Started" app, DBS, ect...


enhanced fedora port has been canceled in favor of NITDebian (TBA)
 
egoshin is offline egoshin
2010-03-09 , 02:24
Posts: 992 | Thanked: 995 times | Joined on Dec 2009 @ California
#25
Originally Posted by wmarone View Post
I don't think the bootloader gives a damn, and any device firmware simply needs to have it provided to the kernel at build time. The firmware doesn't care about the kernel, after all.
Unfortunately - NO. Change from PR1.0 to PR1.1 can't be reversed due to change in firmware - the old PR1.0 doesn't support the new firmware and Nokia doesn't distribute the old firmware. After you do upgrade from PR1.0 to PR1.1 once you have a new firmware in cell/3G and return to PR1.0 doesn't revert that firmware.

In short words - API between firmware and driver changes.
 

The Following User Says Thank You to egoshin For This Useful Post:
wolf is offline wolf
2010-03-09 , 21:00
Posts: 20 | Thanked: 9 times | Joined on Dec 2009
#26
Originally Posted by craftyguy View Post
FTA: "but it can cause noticeable performance issues"
"...so people who only care about throughput (ie, servers)..."

I'd be more interested in what this is.
Basically, the "performance degradation" is that you get an interactive user interface, but copying some file might take 30 seconds, instead of let's say 25 seconds.

The thing is, no normal user cares whether some file copies a couple seconds faster or slower. What does matter is the perceived speed of the device. You don't want to be missing your phone calls, because the OS is currently busy with some disk operations and can't be bothered to show the phone UI. And even if that UI eventually is displayed, you can't use it, because all your input has 10 second lag.

For example, take a look at the two browsers of N900. While the Firefox may load and render the web page faster than Microb (when measured with a clock), it's the latter one that feels fast and responsive.

I'm not aware of the N900 doing THAT many background writes that it would benefit from this feature, especially if it can hurt performance elsewhere..
Start copying something to the phone using scp and try to use the phone at the same time. Or start downloading podcasts using gPodder.
 

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to wolf For This Useful Post:
wmarone is offline wmarone
2010-03-09 , 22:14
Posts: 1,746 | Thanked: 2,100 times | Joined on Sep 2009
#27
Originally Posted by egoshin View Post
Unfortunately - NO. Change from PR1.0 to PR1.1 can't be reversed due to change in firmware
Well aware of this.

the old PR1.0 doesn't support the new firmware and Nokia doesn't distribute the old firmware.
PR1.0 and PR1.1 are much, much more than just the kernel.

Originally Posted by egoshin View Post
API between firmware and driver changes.
Unless the code for that is now a closed source module, there is no reason that a new kernel version is impossible. The incompatibility with the old firmware version lies at a level above the kernel.
Last edited by wmarone; 2010-03-09 at 22:16.
 
egoshin is offline egoshin
2010-03-10 , 01:15
Posts: 992 | Thanked: 995 times | Joined on Dec 2009 @ California
#28
Originally Posted by wmarone View Post
Unless the code for that is now a closed source module, there is no reason that a new kernel version is impossible.
Sure.

The incompatibility with the old firmware version lies at a level above the kernel.
Uhm...m-mm, technically it is not true but I think it is not a case for N900. For new device - may be (I point to DRM possibility).

However, at the end of day I think we can do and run a more newest kernel even with proprietary Nokia modules because the only possible problems here are:

1. module format - solvable, via conversion for exam
2. old kernel APIs which may be excluded from newest kernel (usually - some details) - we can keep it actually or support a conversion middle layer.
 
damion is offline damion
2010-05-20 , 14:05
Posts: 173 | Thanked: 160 times | Joined on Jan 2010 @ London, UK
#29
The wifi kernel infrastructure changed from .29 to .30 introducing a much easier way to implement Infrastructure mode wifi, which was not dependent on certain wifi chipsets that work with hostap. Things like the PSP require Infrastructure rather than ad-hoc and won't work with the n900's wifi tether mode. I don't know how easy/possible it is to backport that in to .28 or try to make a kernel that works on the n900 work with .30 or higher.
 
AlMehdi is offline AlMehdi
2010-05-20 , 14:16
Posts: 1,751 | Thanked: 844 times | Joined on Feb 2010 @ Sweden
#30
hmm.. aren't MeeGo using .33? I think i saw somewhere that we would go to .33 later. It where in some blog of a Nokia emploiee. So the work are probably already in the spin.
 
Reply
Page 3 of 5 12 3 45

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.

Contact Us - Home - Archive - Top