Root Access

qasdfdsaq

19:00

There maybe a combination of chips though, but often different ones in different regions (hence different band support)

@Bob That one's actually quite odd. It has what appears to be an AT&T logo, but a FEM that doesn't match the bands listed on GSMArena for the AT&T variant.

Bob

@qasdfdsaq Perhaps it's more a Qualcomm thing.

ah nah.

qasdfdsaq

Urg. I hate Qualcomm and their anticompetitive practices.

Bob

What's anticompetitive now?

qasdfdsaq

They forbid manufacturers from using audio DACs from other brands when using a Qualcomm chipset

Bob

Avago ACPM-7717 in the H811.

@qasdfdsaq ...odd.

qasdfdsaq

19:06

Which is why you never see Galaxy phones with a Qualcomm chipset and a Wolfson DAC - only the Exynos ones have a Wolfson DAC

Bob

What happened with the LG V10 then?

> Qualcomm Snapdragon 808 SoC

> 32 bit Hi-Fi DAC by ESS Technology

qasdfdsaq

Policy changed? I was told they were lightening up about a year ago.

Possibly dropped it completely on the 8xx series

Bob

shrug People have been able to get B40 working on the H815 (only H815T officially supports it) so maybe that's a special case.

Odd.

qasdfdsaq

Or quite possibly not every manufacturer behaves the same way and there's more variation than I thought?

It did quite annoy me though, my Galaxy S3 had a Wolfson DAC, My S5 now has too, but I couldn't get an S4 with a Wolfson DAC because Qualcomm.

Wait does my S5?

I'm confused. The S6 has one.

Argh, haven't spoken to my Wolfson engineer friend for ages, I'm losing all sense of reality

Bob

Hm... H815 supports B2 but H815T doesn't

H815T supports B40 but H815 doesn't.

But people have reported getting B40 working on the H815.

That... is really weird.

qasdfdsaq

19:12

Hey don't get me wrong, it's all good when people get together and hack their devices to do more than they were meant to by the manufacturer.

Bob

That implies that the H815 always had support for B40, on the hardware side.

qasdfdsaq

I just wish manufacturers didn't deliberately disable things in the first place.

Bob

But then why bother creating another hardware variant solely for B2? Assuming H815T hardware actually doesn't support it.

Or perhaps the hardware supports it but it wasn't really tested/optimised, or caused performance issues elsewhere.

Or perhaps the regulatory or market (akin to region-locking) above.

shrug

qasdfdsaq

Ah band 40 is the 2.3Ghz TDD band

Bob

@qasdfdsaq i9505?

qasdfdsaq

19:16

@Bob Perhaps they only had room for a certain number of transcievers and had to remove one to fit another. Or y'know, regulatory reasons.

Band 2 is a north america only one I believe

Bob

@qasdfdsaq But the fact that the H815 does work with B40 implies that they didn't remove it.

@qasdfdsaq Is this public info or just from your friend?

I'm having a bit of trouble finding public info on it.

(Really - I do want to know more.)

qasdfdsaq

@Bob Oops?

Band 40 directly borders the 802.11g WiFi band, so a wideband transciever can easily handle both

It's also TDD, just the same as WiFi.

I suspect that being the "special case"

Also I've been saying for a while LTE is almost like WiFi on steriods (aka, same modulation)

Bob

@qasdfdsaq WiMAX is like WiFi on steroids :P

LTE is a bit further removed, but similar.

qasdfdsaq

WiMAX doesn't use the same OFDM as LTE and 802.11.

Bob

Oh?

qasdfdsaq

19:22

Well, it does in certain modes... and what the hell is SOFDMA anyway

Bob

OFDM, SOFDMA, this is getting into over-my-head territory :P

qasdfdsaq

OFDM = basically everything these days

Bob

> I was able to add WCDMA 800 and AWS bands, along with LTE band 40.

So, considering the LTE 800 MHz band was already supported, that explains that.

Not sure about 40.

Then there's the carrier-specific variants which are more likely to be software-locked.

qasdfdsaq

Pretty much all the major current-gen and next-gen RF transmission systems use OFDM

It's fairly simple and a fairly important thing to understand in RF/microwave engineering.

The principle is it uses lots of small carriers of different frequencies that are separated by exactly the right distance that they don't interfere with each other

Bob

> Qualcomm specifically has had a very strong footprint in the US because they bundle their audio hub with their main processor and it has traditionally been difficult for manufacturers to break that bundle because of problems with software integration.

> Things are changing though. This is the first generation in which Qualcomm separated out its own audio chip, which means we're now competing like-for-like.

engadget.com/2013/05/22/wolfson-ceo-mike-hickey-interview

qasdfdsaq

19:27

Quite what magic does that I can't explain right now but used to know

Journeyman Geek

lol

Bob

Sounds less like an anticompetitive agreement and more like simply a design choice.

Journeyman Geek

IIRC homeplug uses ODFM too

qasdfdsaq

Design choice... lol good one

Bob

Well, yes.

They might have had certain other reasons for choosing to incorporate the DAC.

But on the part of the phone manufacturer there wasn't necessarily an explicit agreement.

More the fact that it's already there.

qasdfdsaq

19:28

Well duh, an explicit agreement would be illegal...

"It's already there" is exactly why Microsoft was fined for anticompetitive practices on IE and WMP. Just sayin'

Journeyman Geek

probably lower power use.

qasdfdsaq

AAnnyway. Samsung had integrated Wolfson dacs in previous generation products and same generation products without the Qualcomm chipset - so certainly no "software integration issue"

Journeyman Geek

intel was looking at doing that, which is going to slightly pave over realtek.

Bob

@qasdfdsaq Well, no. At least with WMP that was for its use of undocumented interfaces.

qasdfdsaq

"Qualcomm is a rarity in that respect. Samsung's Exynos, NVIDIA, Renesas, Marvell and the others don't work that way" Uhuh

Bob

19:31

Anyway, reductio ad absurdum: if you're not allowed to integrate that, why are you allowed to integrate the radio? Why are you allowed to integrate the GPU? Why the cache memory?

qasdfdsaq

@Bob They don't.

You can use other radios with Qualcomm chips.

You can use other GPUs

Bob

@qasdfdsaq Just as you can use other DACs with Qualcomm chips, AFAICT.

You just would have a bit of dead silicon on the SoC.

qasdfdsaq

Cache memory... well that's an integral part required for the chip to function at all

Bob

I'm currently assuming that there wasn't an agreement not to use other DACs - more a technical decision because "it's already there".

qasdfdsaq

Well, you're free to choose who to believe

Bob

19:33

At that point, the same argument applies to the GPU, to the radio.

If there was an agreement, yea that changes the game entirely.

qasdfdsaq

Of course, even from my point of view that's hearsay

Bob

But if it were simply the act of integrating more - we can't really guess their intention in doing so - it could have been intentionally anticompetitive, it could have been for benevolent reasons, it could have been to make their chip more attractive without really considering intentionally pushing out competitors.

So I can't really call the act of integrating the chip anticompetitive without further information.

qasdfdsaq

But hey, if there was an anticompetitive agreement you can be sure they wouldn't be talking about it publicly.

Bob

@qasdfdsaq True. But at this point an equally likely explanation would be it was technically easier - and cheaper, in terms of price and board space - to use the on-chip DAC.

qasdfdsaq

Well I'll be going past their offices tomorrow, I'll be sure to drop in and ask if I've gotten the wrong idea all along... >_>

Bob

19:36

The reason the on-chip DAC was originally integrated onto the chip, I can't decide obviously.

I mean, all of this is speculation.

Anticompetitive agreements are certainly possible, behind the scenes. That's certainly not ruled out.

Buuuut... I'd prefer to be optimistic -_-

qasdfdsaq

Err, doesn't meet my definition of "speculation"

Bob

When there's a reasonable technical explanation.

@qasdfdsaq Well, speculation of what happened to make that decision.

The only concrete facts we have are: Samsung used the on-chip DAC. The on-chip DAC existed.

The whys are unknown.

qasdfdsaq

I'd have expected the people who designed the chips would have considered if there's a "reasonable technical explanation"

Bob

@qasdfdsaq Even then they might not have been told the full decision-making reason by Samsung, and left to speculate on their own.

And from their end it would look like Qualcomm is trying to push them out.

qasdfdsaq

@Bob Quite possibly, yes.

Bob

19:39

Intentional or not, and just how strong that intent was? Hard to say.

qasdfdsaq

And it's basically ended now anyway. My S4 is dead, long live the Qualcomm-no-Wolfson S4!

Bob

This is the kind of thing that could possibly happen but damn near impossible to prove.

@qasdfdsaq My S4 is still alive and kicking, if a bit laggy :P

qasdfdsaq

I broke the screen three times on it. Replaced twice. Now has some motherboard fault that freezes the OS anytime you try to use the audio.

Bob

But I like my G4 better right now. Sorry, Samsung, you started losing me with Knox and the lack of SD was the final nail.

qasdfdsaq

And I figured if I have to replace the motherboard I might as well get a new phone already

Every other part's been replaced...

Bob

19:40

My S2 died :\

It survived water submersion but died a few months later after a light splash.

qasdfdsaq

@Bob Heh. It's almost as if we're opposites

Bob

Well, it still works. But charging is really fiddly now.

And I woke up to it at some 50-60 degrees O_O

qasdfdsaq

My S2 was the only phone I've had recently that never had any faults

Bob

So pretty sure I shorted/blew a charging circuit somewhere.

qasdfdsaq

Every phone I've had since I've broken the screen and something else on, not the S2

Bob

19:42

S2 was replaced by my S4, which has served me well.

Though the SD card would stop responding now and then, necessitating a full power reset... wouldn't even shut down successfully.

LG G4 is much smoother, though.

And that camera... drool

qasdfdsaq

S2 = > Worked until I lost it
S3 => Broke screen (twice).
S4 => Broke screen (thrice), failed mobo
Sony Z3 => Waterproofing fail, screen cracked by its own charger

Bob

S4's camera was so damn slow, especially with the damn autofocus, and its autofocus had a stupid habit of being nearly in focus and then snapping back to the blurriest state possible. stupid contrast-detection crap.

newer Samsung is apparently phase-detection

qasdfdsaq

S5 => Decided I had enough and insured my phone for the first time ever. Course, haven't broken the screen because Murphy's law

Bob

G4 is laser autofocus, but the laser module only works up to 10cm apparently so I haven't a clue how it actually works

qasdfdsaq

WTF is laser autofocus

Bob

19:44

@qasdfdsaq Ah... I've always wanted a waterproof phone

qasdfdsaq

Laser assisted phase-detect probably

Bob

@qasdfdsaq Laser module for distance measurement.

qasdfdsaq

@Bob That's also one of the reasons I returned my S6 and got an S5.

Bob

Works very well in low light, apparently

@qasdfdsaq I had my eye on the Moto X Style

qasdfdsaq

S4 had some water damage too before it broke

Bob

19:44

But only Vodafone here and the local price is outrageous

qasdfdsaq

(Using it out in the Scottish rain tends to... not be healthy)

Bob

I actually picked up the G4 on a whim (during a sale)

qasdfdsaq

@Bob Import it?

Bob

@qasdfdsaq I generally prefer to avoid imports for expensive equipment unless the price is amazing.

Though someone submerged their G4 in water for two hours and it still worked (after drying), so... that's good :P

qasdfdsaq

Didn't LG coat their PCBs in hydrophobic coating? Or was that Motorola

Bob

19:47

@qasdfdsaq That was Motorola.

That was why I was looking at the Style

No seals, but it had a low IP rating (IP52).

Good enough for splashes.

@qasdfdsaq phonearena.com/news/…

androidauthority.com/lg-g3-laser-auto-focus-386896

qasdfdsaq

Better than Sony, claiming the highest IP rating of IP68 and failing to live up to x5

Then again, the hand dryers at work are marked IPX1

Bob

Ha. What's that, a light mist?

@qasdfdsaq Wasn't there something about no warranty too? :S

I actually prefer a lower IP rating that doesn't rely on seals.

qasdfdsaq

@Bob Which is why I ended up suing over it

Bob

Seals wear out over time.

@qasdfdsaq How'd that go?

qasdfdsaq

@Bob Still filling out the damn forms

Bob

19:51

Ouch.

Would that fall under small claims?

qasdfdsaq

Yep

However English small claims can be done online, Scottish ones can't

Bob

> Qualcomm WCD9330 Audio Codec

Yea, it's separate on the G4.

Probably was fairly simple to swap it out on the V10.

Urk. This damn thing uses SlimPort.

Samsung does MHL.

Guess which one is more common.

qasdfdsaq

@Bob But but but... Software Integration Issues!

Bob

@qasdfdsaq shrug sounds like a fairly standard corporate statement

qasdfdsaq

We told them to have "software integration issues!"

Bob

19:55

That statement came from the Wolfson CEO btw :P

Dunno where he got it from.

Might've been Samsung.

Might've been someone else.

qasdfdsaq

CEOs dinnae ken nuffin

Bob

...I haven't been reading your messages with a Scottish accent until now

qasdfdsaq

If I was profiting off illegal underhand practices I wouldn't be telling the CEO of a competitor company. I wouldn't even be telling my own CEO. I mean, look at Volkswagen!

Bob

I don't do the whole accent-in-my-head thing too well :(

qasdfdsaq

"Nuffin" aint even scottish

Bob

19:57

@qasdfdsaq The other two words though?

Or at least fit the stereotype.

qasdfdsaq

I'm not even Scottish

Bob

lol

closes 50 tabs on phones

qasdfdsaq

Fuck Scotland

Fuck England

Bob

Oh, I was supposed to try to fix the bot export.

qasdfdsaq

Fuck everywhere.

I'm an equal opportunities bigot.

Bob

20:02

!!export

ChatBot John Cavil

@Bob Could not process input. Error: NETWORK_ERR: XMLHttpRequest Exception 101

Bob

Could not process input? wat.

Wait. Why is there an exception?

qasdfdsaq

Haha you broke it

Bob

That's not even a Gist response!

@allquixotic Uhh... I think Cavil's driver dun broke.

Apparently this is a CORS-related error. Maybe.

But Gist passes the correct CORS responses...

...looks like synchronous xmlhttprequest might be a problem

@allquixotic Uhm. I don't think so... can I get access to it again? :P

allquixotic

20:54

ah, I realize what happened - I re-did the OS image and copied over the Cavil stuff from my old server, but never restored authorized_keys

so yeah, I need an SSH pubkey to put into authorized_keys

Mosh is also enabled so you can use that if you want

Bob

@allquixotic Uhm

Probably go with this one

But I'm going to sleep now (yes, it's morning), so I'll have to fix it a bit later

And... yea, I probably should be doing this on my own machine and making a pull request and blah but I really can't be bothered setting up a proper environment for what should be a small change -_-

allquixotic

@Bob Go to sleep. It's added, but that's not a license for you to pull an all-nighter working on this.

Journeyman Geek

;p

(I've been up since 3. Looks like I finally caught the cold that's been going around)

My remix mini's shipping.

Recycle Bin

21:41

hi

DavidPostill

lo

Dave

21:57

The whole problem could have been avoided if you would have used chef ;P

Anyhow heading home for the weekend talk to you all later.

qasdfdsaq

23:01

#TheTurnipIsALie

Stack Exchange

23:17

0

Q: Change quote background color

The quote background (this is inline code) color is the same as code background color. Please change it because code sometimes appears in quotes. (I realize meta has different theme but the problem's the same on su)

feature-request

ChatBot John Cavil

23:57

I have just been restarted! This happens daily automatically, or when my owner restarts me. Ready for commands.

Transcript for