I am new to android and wish to play around with the emulator.
What I want to do is to create my own piece of virtual hardware that can collect OpenGL commands and produce OpenGL graphics.
I have been told that in order to do this I will need to write a linux kernal driver to enable communication with the hardware. Additionally, I will need to write an Android user space library to call the kernal driver.
To start with I plan on making a very simple piece of hardware that only does, say 1 or 2, commands.
Has anyone here done something like this? If so, do you have any tips or possible links to extra information?
Any feedback would be appreciated.
Writing a hardware emulation is a tricky task and by no means easy. So if you really want to do this, I'd not start from scratch. In your case I'd first start with some simpler (because many of the libraries are already in place on guest and the host side): Implementing a OpenGL passthrough for ordinary Linux through qemu. What does it take:
First you add some virtual GPU into qemu, which also involves adding a new graphics output module that uses OpenGL (so far qemu uses SDL). Next you create DRI/DRM drivers in the Linux kernel, that will run on the guest (Android uses its own graphics system, but for learning DRI/DRM are fine), as well as in Mesa. On the host side you must translate what comes from qemu in OpenGL calls. Since the host side GPU is doing all the hard work your DRI/DRM part will be quite minimal and just build a brigde.
The emulator that comes with Android SDK 23 already runs OpenGL, you can try this out with the official MoreTeapots example: https://github.com/googlesamples/android-ndk/tree/a5fdebebdb27ea29cb8a96e08e1ed8c796fa52db/MoreTeapots
I am pretty sure that it is hardware accelerated, since all those polygons are rendering at 60 FPS.
The AVD creation GUI from Studio has a hardware acceleration option, which should control options like:
==> config.ini <==
hw.gpu.enabled=yes
hw.gpu.mode=auto
==> hardware-qemu.ini <==
hw.gpu.enabled = true
hw.gpu.mode = host
hw.gpu.blacklisted = no
in ~/.android/avd/Nexus_One_API_24.a/.
Related
Problem
I'm looking for a way to flash an ESP32 module's memory without installing the whole IDF software suite.
Why
Because I want to integrate ESP32 onto a custom board along with a low-performance ARM-powered CPU which runs a tiny Linux distro (based on Debian), and I want to flash ESP32 from this tiny Linux distro.
I know I could use the bootloader, but who will upload the initial bootloader? I don't want to do extra steps, so my idea is to embed the ESP32 module onto my custom board, and let the Linux to flash it from factory-state (when it's flash is empty, ie. no preloaded bootloader). Or is the serial bootloader always preinstalled on all ESP32 modules (like on ESP-WROOM-32)?
Why I don't want to use IDF? Because I don't want to build or debug anything, I just want to flash myprogram.bin onto ESP32. Also, as the board is low-performance, it would take ages to download everything for running IDF.
Current state
The ESP32 module is now visible via UART (RX,TX,GND), and if I held low the GPIO0, it runs the bootloader (my current module is embedded onto a NodeMCU - but there is no USB connected, this is raw UART!):
rst:0x1 (POWERON_RESET),boot:0x3 (DOWNLOAD_BOOT(UART0/UART1/SDIO_REI_REO_V2))
waiting for download
Could I expect the same behavior (controlling GPIO0 for running the bootloader) for all ESP32 modules, or this works just because guys at NodeMCU preprogrammed already some bootloader onto it?
I'm looking for a way to flash this ESP32 preferrably without any python script.
The ESP32 has a first-stage bootloader in ROM capable of writing to Flash - that's what's printing your output. You can talk to it if you know the protocol - this is implemented by the Python scripts in ESP IDF. If you don't want to use the official implementation because it's too heavy, you'll have to write your own implementation of this protocol which scratches your specific itch. Fortunately it's more or less documented and you can likely reverse engineer any missing knowledge from official Python scripts.
Actually Espressif also provides a nice and small binary for flashing ESPs:
https://github.com/espressif/esp-serial-flasher
Serial flasher component provides portable library for flashing Espressif SoCs (ESP32, ESP32-S2, ESP8266) from other host microcontroller. Espressif SoCs are normally programmed via serial interface (UART). Port layer for given host microcontroller has to be implemented, if not available.
One more (but very important) addition:
You have to modify this repo to make it work correctly, and also you might have to upload not just your binary, but also bootloader and partition_table.
I'm currently struggling to determine how I can get an emulated environment via QEMU to correctly display output on the command line. I have an environment that displays perfectly well using the virt reference board, a cortex-a9CPU, and the 4.1 Linux kernel cross-compiled for ARM. However, if I swap out the 4.1 kernel for 2.6 or 3.1, suddenly I can no longer see console output.
While solving this issue is my main goal, I feel like I lack a critical understanding of how Linux and the hardware initially integrate before userspace configurations via boot scripts and whatnot have a chance to execute. I am aware of the device tree, and have a loose understanding of how it works. But the issue I ran into where a different kernel version broke console availability entirely confounds me. Can someone explain how Linux initially maps console output to a hardware device on the ARM architecture?
Thank you!
The answer depends quite a bit on which kernel version, what config options are set, what hardware, and also possibly on kernel command line arguments.
For modern kernels, the answer is that it looks in the device tree blob it is passed for descriptions of devices, some of which will be serial ports, and it initializes those. The kernel config or command line will specify which of those is to be used for the console. For earlier kernels, especially if you go all the way back to 2.6, use of device tree was less universal, and for some hardware the boot loader simply said "this is a versatile express board" (for instance) and the kernel had compiled-in data structures to tell it where the devices were for each board that it supported. As the transition to device tree progressed, boards were converted one by one, and sometimes a few devices at a time, so what exactly the situation was for any specific kernel version depends on which board you're using.
The other thing that I rather suspect you're running into is that if the kernel crashes early in bootup (ie before it finds the serial port at all) then it will never output anything. So if the kernel is just too early to support the "virt" board properly at all, or if your kernel config is missing something important, then the chances are good that it crashes in early boot without being able to print you a useful message. (Sometimes "earlycon" or "earlyprintk" kernel arguments can assist here, but not always.)
Iam using nvidia gt 440 gpu. It is used for both display and computational purpose which leads to less performance while computation. can i enable it only for computational purpose? if so how can i disable it from using display.
It depends -- are you working on Windows or Linux? Do you have any other display adapters (graphics cards) in the machine?
If you're on Linux, you can run without the X Windows Server (i.e., from a terminal) and SSH into the box (or attach your display to another adapter).
If you're on Windows, you need to have a second display adapter. As long as your display is connected to your GeForce 440 GT, there's no way to use it only for computational purposes. That also includes Remote Desktop, which won't work at all unless you have a Tesla card because of the way the WDDM (Windows Display Driver Model) was designed (it can't be accessed from within Session 0, which is where the RDP service runs).
I'm using Intel integrated graphics for display purposes and GPU for compute purpose on Linux.
You'll need to setup from bios to use the integrated graphics on mobo. This will leave your GPU free. It depends on your hardware available. =)
How much does it affects the performance? I did checked before, the display in windows did takes up some memory (less than 10mb).
Check that you have write permission on the /dev/nvidia* devices. The CUDA C Getting Started Guide for Linux contains a script that automatically sets the correct permissions at startup.
I'm building an IOKit CFPlugin driver for OS X. I'll be working with network data coming in that will be translated to MIDI data. No hardware is involved other than the built-in Airport. I have experience with drivers on Windows machines and firmware but this is my first dip into doing it on the Mac. So far things are going pretty well, but the Apple documentation sez: "For safety reasons, you should not load your driver on your development machine."
I only have one Mac. I really don't want two Macs- sorry, Apple. Should I take this warning seriously? Are there things I need to know?
Thanks, Tom Jeffries
You could also consider running OS X inside a VM as your testbed. It would surely be much more convenient that having a separate boot volume.
The warning is rather poorly worded; what you should consider doing is using a separate boot volume (partition) for trying out your driver, since it's possible to arbitrarily hose your system with your driver.
If you're doing kernel development on any OS that isn't isolated from your main system (via a VM, alternate boot disk, etc.), you're crazy!
What may be a bigger issue is that you can't do any kernel debugging, because the only option for that is to use GDB on a remote OS X system. For this, you may want to consider running OS X in virtualization.
you DEFINITELY want to have some way to recover a fubar kext installation: a bootable external drive or something you can quickly restore from-- this is the main reason for Apple's warning against running in-development-kernel-extensions on your production machine.
Nicholas is right that in order to debug using gdb (the only way in kernel space) you do need two machines. I've never tried using a VM as Coxy suggests: but I guess it's feasible (assuming that you run your kext on the virtual machine and use the real host machine to run gdb).
My preferred method for tracing and debugging in the kernel is kprintf() routed to firewire (aka firewire kprintf (man fwkpfv) ). for this you do need two machines with firewire ports.
finally, being an old computer musician myself, I wonder why you want to program a MIDI synthesizer (or transformer) on the network stack level. my guess is that you would have a much more gratifying experience working in userland (where you can use floating point math...)
if you need some hints or tips, feel free to get in touch...
|K<
from the ADC Kernel Programming Guide
Kernel programming is a black art that
should be avoided if at all possible.
Fortunately, kernel programming is
usually unnecessary. You can write
most software entirely in user space.
Even most device drivers (FireWire and
USB, for example) can be written as
applications, rather than as kernel
code. A few low-level drivers must be
resident in the kernel's address
space, however, and this document
might be marginally useful if you are
writing drivers that fall into this
category.
I'm currently setting up vmware Server 2.0 for kernel debugging with gdb ( see this setup guide ) and someone asked me why not use kvm?
So I ask: kvm vs. vmware for kernel debugging / USB driver development
what are the pros and cons of each?
Driver development? are you working on a driver for a particular piece of hardware? if so, then you probably won't be able to use virtualization, because the virtualized instance won't have access to the new hardware.
For this you will need two machines, one running a remote debugger on the other.
*Edit: * Apparently you're developing a driver for a USB Device? this is one area in particular that a VM actually Can help. These days most VM's have the ability to delegate specific USB devices to a guest OS.
That said, this situation doesn't really offer any benefits over the remote debugger option, because you still need a way to inspect the state of the running or crashed OS, and VM's offer very little assistance in this regard. You might be able to replay saved states from just before a crash.
You might be able to get a bit of traction using UML, which would allow you to do local debugging as on a regular user process, which is a little bit less trouble.
Instead of answering the direct question I'll add another option... Depending on if the kernel in question is a Linux kernel, and what part(s) of it you are working on, you might find that UserModeLinux (included in the 2.6.x source, and available as patch sets for 2.4 and 2.2) may trump both of those options.
As it runs the kernel as a userland process under the host kernel it is easier to attach common debugging tools to. I believe it is very commonly used in the early stages of updates/additions to file-system related code. If you are developing/debugging modules that interact directly with hardware it may be much less use to you though.
Reference links: home,
other
I recently started building GNU Mach/HURD and found the combination of QEmu/KVM to work really quite well.. for the following reasons:
QEmu presents quite a clean environment
Networking has alot of options
I can easily mount the filesystem using a raw device file / loopback
Bottom line is, for kernel work I just want the minimum of functionality to boot and see the result. VMWare is much more for usable virtualization rather than down-and-dirty.
There is however no comparison to booting on a real machine with real hardware. The VM environment can seem like a safety blanket somtimes ... because even my toaster would know what a Realtek RTL8139C was.
If it is a "real hardware" device, of course, vmware will not emulate it, so you won't be able to debug the driver under it (nor will any other virtualisation software, unless you extend one to do so).
Device driver debugging can be done to some extent with a real hardware machine with a normal kernel - although there are obviously things you can't do - like set breakpoints.
It is still possible to attach a debugger to the kernel and inspect stuff. Moreover, traditional printf() debugging is quite possible (printk, anyone), and there are various features in the kernel which make debugging easier. It's possible to build the kernel with various debug options to try to detect pointer problems, memory leaks etc.
By default, the kernel even gives a nice-ish stack trace on the log when it encounters an OOPS or BUG condition (obviously this does not necessarily get written anywhere if the system hangs or crashes). Of course a pointer-out-of-range condition happening inside an interrupt is a recipe for disaster, but you could still get a stack trace on the screen immediately before the panic :)