The good news is that there are no hikes, the bad news is that there are no cuts either. Google is expected to unveil the Pixel 10 family at an event on...
I agree, but it’s more complicated than that: They have removed the device tree for pixel devices from AOSP and using the device tree of the basic virtual phone in android studio instead. That brings the pixel 10 family (as well as future android pixel devices) to the same level as many other phonemaker’s devices as far as making roms is concerned. So not all hardware will be documented, many drivers will need to be rebuilt.
The pixel line up to the 9a is not affected because older device trees can be used (until Google wants to mod the way drivers load or add API’s).
They are correct. It only means more work for future devices, makes the initial port to a device slower. But then, once things have been figured out. It becomes just as fast and reliable as it was (unless what I said earlier: Google setting things in a very different way in a major update (for example, moving to Fushia, which has been abandoned)
Ah. I read “closing the source” and thought AOSP as a whole, not the device tree for pixels. I did hear about that, and I’m honestly kind of hoping it opens up the space for PostMarketOS to support more Pixels if the drivers need to be written from scratch. I am not a big fan of the direction Google has been going either regarding AOSP& device trees so, another player in the mobile OS space that isnt DOA would be cool. Wishful thinking.
I agree, but it’s more complicated than that: They have removed the device tree for pixel devices from AOSP and using the device tree of the basic virtual phone in android studio instead. That brings the pixel 10 family (as well as future android pixel devices) to the same level as many other phonemaker’s devices as far as making roms is concerned. So not all hardware will be documented, many drivers will need to be rebuilt. The pixel line up to the 9a is not affected because older device trees can be used (until Google wants to mod the way drivers load or add API’s).
Graphene OS posted that having the device trees is not a strict requirement.
They are correct. It only means more work for future devices, makes the initial port to a device slower. But then, once things have been figured out. It becomes just as fast and reliable as it was (unless what I said earlier: Google setting things in a very different way in a major update (for example, moving to Fushia, which has been abandoned)
Ah. I read “closing the source” and thought AOSP as a whole, not the device tree for pixels. I did hear about that, and I’m honestly kind of hoping it opens up the space for PostMarketOS to support more Pixels if the drivers need to be written from scratch. I am not a big fan of the direction Google has been going either regarding AOSP& device trees so, another player in the mobile OS space that isnt DOA would be cool. Wishful thinking.