Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[BUG] Possible workaround to fix battery levels TWRP #250

Open
samuraikid0 opened this issue Feb 10, 2021 · 9 comments
Open

[BUG] Possible workaround to fix battery levels TWRP #250

samuraikid0 opened this issue Feb 10, 2021 · 9 comments
Labels
unconfirmed fix indicates that a bug might have been resolved, but not 100% validated workaround a method exists to workaround this issue

Comments

@samuraikid0
Copy link

samuraikid0 commented Feb 10, 2021

Hi there ! I'm much surprised has you :)
Using TWRP Recovery 3.5.0_9-MoRo-1.6 https://www.androidfilehost.com/?fid=17248734326145716182
And Floyd V4

Well this is what i did for fix battery % in TWRP

I installed last bootloader and 8.0 rom from alexndr
https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/rom-g930f-fd-alexndr-u8eti2-devbase-v7-3-encryption-support-oct-20.3592914/unread
https://www.androidfilehost.com/?w=files&flid=251537

I then reboot on TWRP used format factory option, and then install floyd v4 with aroma wipe option and boom % level was fixed

So my guess is that some file from 8.0 was retained ?
TWRP
system

(Ignore twrp is orange it is blue screenshot made it orange)

@ananjaser1211
Copy link
Owner

ananjaser1211 commented Feb 11, 2021

TWRP does not report battery percentage the same as ROM since galaxy S6. This is because roms use many more nodes to measure estimated % based on battery wear etc. Twrp only reads an old node which will only give the same reading if you calibrate on oreo (because twrp kernel is oreo)

The only battery levels you worry about is the ROM and the offline charge mode.

Your values are identical for now but The more you use the phone the more mismatch they will get untill they stabilize. Usually ~5 to 10% gap. Unless you use twrp kernel that matches the rom for multiple battery cycles

Aside from that this is not related to our #196 bug. That bug is about mismatch from booted rom and offline mode. Which are the actual usable % reported by the kenrel. This bug should be fixed in TWRP

@samuraikid0
Copy link
Author

Ok i understand but look 24h after 13h, 14h of moderated use

Screenshot_20210211-153523_Bromite

Screenshot_2021-02-11-09-36-05

@samuraikid0
Copy link
Author

Still same levels %

20210220_115453
Screenshot_2021-02-20-05-50-32

Cheers !

@dacili4778
Copy link

What happens when you charge 100%? Do you still have 100% in twrp? Because when I get to 100% in the rom, it appears 90% in twrp. I have not tried your method yet but I would like to know if you have already tried.

@samuraikid0
Copy link
Author

100 % yep

@NoRRt
Copy link

NoRRt commented Apr 1, 2021

Check New Ver Twrp S7 :
twrp-3.5.1_9-0 S7 Flat
twrp-3.5.1_9-0 S7 edge

@samuraikid0
Copy link
Author

Check New Ver Twrp S7 :
twrp-3.5.1_9-0 S7 Flat
twrp-3.5.1_9-0 S7 edge

Nice its fixed with new twrp 3.5.1 9.0

Thanks

@pascua28
Copy link

pascua28 commented Apr 4, 2021

I think the mismatch comes from the outdated battery voltage values present in TWRP's kernel dts since TWRP doesn't need an updated kernel and Samsung usually updates the voltage values.

@Pr0b3
Copy link

Pr0b3 commented Apr 5, 2021

battery levels when charging during phone was turn off = battery levels on twrp mode ≠ battery levels on OneUI

I don't think the mismatch comes from recovery. Perhaps this is just a feature of OneUI

@ananjaser1211 ananjaser1211 added unconfirmed fix indicates that a bug might have been resolved, but not 100% validated workaround a method exists to workaround this issue labels Jul 1, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
unconfirmed fix indicates that a bug might have been resolved, but not 100% validated workaround a method exists to workaround this issue
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants