Hi
I’ve received the new X96 M200 box, which now comes with the S905A SoC instead of the previous S905X5M. It seems manufacturers have started shipping S905A only.
Unfortunately, CE doesn’t work with the S905X5M DTB on this new revision. It starts to boot but fails with: “Missing partition ‘super’ on emmc!”.
Is there a solution for this? Everything else seems identical (Android version, partitions), only the SoC/DTB has changed.
Thanks in advance!
Edit:
Here is the link to the dtb
Thanks. There is a super partition on the box. Self-made fw, I did the android 14 system. It works in fw from 2 months ago but not on this one. The same system as the previous one, only the dtb is different on the box.
I’ll look at the dtb, but unfortunately it would be lost with every ce update 
I’ve been comparing the vendor Android DTBs of the S905X5M (BM201) and the S905A (BM221), as I’m getting the “Missing partition super” error on the X5A with the current CE image.
I noticed a few differences that might be relevant to the storage detection issue, but I’m not sure. Just wanted to share these in case they help:
eMMC (mmc@fe08c000): The S905A (BM221) seems to use different regulator mappings in the vendor DTS compared to the X5M. I see explicit links to vmmc-supply (3.3V) and vqmmc-supply (1.8V) there. Maybe the kernel struggles to probe the eMMC on this specific board without these?
Memory mapping: I also noticed the fb_reserved (framebuffer) range is different.
X5M (BM201) uses 0x3f800000
S905A (BM221) uses 0xf9000000 (size 0x4000000)
Could these voltage or memory address shifts be the reason why the storage isn’t picked up correctly on the X5A?
Here are the extracted dtbs for S905A and X5M soc if anyone is interested and could look at them. Unfortunately, the X5M soc will disappear and the S905A soc will be the most common
There are separate dts available from Amlogic but the team have no such SoC. So you might figure it out yourself and make a pr or be patient until we might able to solve such issue.
Thanks for the answer.
I am patient, I only meant this as help for you — precisely because I suspect that not all kinds of SoC and box are available.
And I am trying to solve it for myself, but that doesn’t help others. I cannot include it in the device_tree folder.
I have also created the dual boot for my own use, but for that, I had to rewrite the FW and fstab, and I had to disable ABV protection, encryption, etc. This also doesn’t help others because it is too complex this way and can only be applied individually to each box type.
I just wanted to point out that the Chinese manufacturers have made changes that will presumably affect all other S905X5m boxes, including the major brands, because this will replace the X5M SoC—it’s mostly the only one available now. If there is no need for such reports, I understand.
**Device:** X96 M200 (Amlogic S905A, 4GB RAM, 64GB eMMC)
**CoreELEC build:** CoreELEC-Amlogic-no.aarch64-22.0-Piers_nightly_20260311-Generic.img.gz
**DTB used:** s7d_s905x5m_4g_1gbit.dtb (copied to SD root as dtb.img)
**Android on eMMC:** SlimBOXtv ATV 14 (sbx_x96_m200a_atv_14_15.img)
**Issue: Missing partition ‘super’ on eMMC – no media playback possible**
I am getting the well-known “Missing partition ‘super’ on eMMC” error when booting CoreELEC from SD card. The system boots into Kodi but media playback is completely non-functional.
**What I have already tried, based on previous forum discussions:**
I read Portisch’s note that S905X5M support requires eMMC to be attached and initialized due to TEE/RPMB protection, and that an empty eMMC should be sufficient. My eMMC is not empty – it has SlimBOXtv ATV Android 14 installed.
Based on reports that SlimBOXtv resolved the super partition issue for S905X4 users (TOX3 thread), I flashed SlimBOXtv via Amlogic USB Burning Tool v3.20 with the following settings:
Erasing the Bootloader while Burning slimboxtv returned a not booting device stuck on Stativ slimboxtv splash screen. Could be recovered by flashing stock Rom with Erasing Bootloader enabled.
I also tried the original stock X96 M200 firmware (X96_M200_20250428-1500.img) as the base Android installation before booting CoreELEC – same result.
I confirmed the correct DTB (s7d_s905x5m_4g_1gbit.dtb) is in place.
**Question:**
Is there a known workaround for generic S905X5M boxes (non-Odroid C5) to resolve the super partition / RPMB issue? Is this a matter of the Android firmware not creating the super partition correctly, or is it a kernel/TEE issue that cannot be solved at the user level?
I am aware that S905X5M support in CE-22 is still early-stage and primarily tested on the Odroid C5. If it would help to debug this on a generic box, I am happy to provide access or any logs needed. Please let me know what information or access would be useful.
Thank you.
Here are the logs
kodi.log
https://paste.coreelec.org/MysteryFruit
Kernel log
The new SOC is the problem.
This is not S905X5M but S905A.
The X5M dtb is not good for this, you will need a new dtb. The X5M soc might disappear soon and become only S905A.
I’ve tried everything. I cross-checked and modified the dtb point by point. (There isn’t much difference). I also modified the firmware in several different ways. Every partition is on it exactly the same way as on the 905x5m. The gpt.bin is almost the same. The factory gpt.bin has a CRC error; I fixed that too, but it didn’t help either. CoreELEC sees the super partition but doesn’t mount it. I couldn’t solve it. I’ve run out of ideas, unfortunately.
The error: “Missing partition ‘super’ on emmc!”
The super partition is sparse. Everything is exactly the same as with the X5M. (CE works there)
The same fstab.amlogic file. Protections and everything else turned off on my system. (but this is irrelevant because the factory fstab is the same in the factory fw and this error is there as well.)
Problem is not super partition but incompatible video firmware because of different SoC S905A.
CoreELEC:/ # /usr/lib/coreelec/tee-loader start
run tee from android start
fw active slot: '_a'
active slot: '_a'
Android ucode version: '4.184'
run tee from android end
tee from android match SCS version, trying from coreelec
run tee from coreelec start
Using CoreELEC ucode file '4.184' for S905X5M
Using real rpmb for tee-supplicant
fw_path = /lib/firmware/video/video_ucode.bin
ree skip header length 0x8000
MM-module-name:VDEC CA,Version:1.0.21-g006fb97(build:487)
TEEC_Opensession failed with code 0xffff000f origin 0x3
tee preload video fw fail
run tee from coreelec end
using tee from coreelec failed
cleanup tee start
/usr/lib/coreelec/tee-loader: line 147: 1243 Killed tee-supplicant
cleanup tee end
Thank you very much for the information! I never would have thought of that.
What should I do with the fw? can ucode.bin replacement solve it temporarily? I’m trying to go in that direction
edit: ucode.bin is the same in x5m and S905A.
The .ta files in vendor/lib/teetz are also the same.
I will check the dtb reserved.memory, maybe there is a difference there
How did found out it’s S905A instead S905X5M?
Is it labeled?
My guess is based on what I found from different non-official sources: S905A seems to use slightly higher voltage on CPU cores 3 and 4 above 1.2 GHz, which usually points to a different silicon stepping rather than a new design. Functionally both SoCs still look the same, so this seems more like a manufacturing revision / new part-number / market renaming than a truly new SoC.
That may also explain why newer OEM batches increasingly appear as S905A, while S905X5M is becoming less common in commercial listings, even though the underlying hardware platform remains essentially unchanged. Of course this is not an official Amlogic statement, just a conclusion collected from several discussions and specs.
In the box listings the name is still S905X5M but in brackets it already shows (S905A). When the box arrives you don’t know whether it contains X5M or S905A. Lately I’m only receiving S905A from several manufacturers.
What I read and found further:
The main point is that although the hardware (S905A and X5M) is almost the same, Amlogic has software-separated them at the beginning of the boot process (at BL31/BL32 levels). They use different digital signatures for internal security processes.
There are three different binary “blobs” for the BL31 stage for the S7D family (which is the basis for 9055A and X5M).
Amlogic has software-separated them at the beginning of the boot process (at BL31/BL32 levels). They use different digital signatures for internal security processes.
s905a
s905x5m
s905x5meng (probably Engineering/development version)
These are signed with different keys. This may confirm: the hardware is the same, but the manufacturer (Amlogic) has software-separated them according to markets (domestic Chinese vs. export).
Edit:
something else. S905A fw platform, it can be seen from this that the soc is already included:
{
“Platform” : [0x0813],
“soctype” : [“S7D”],
"soc_ids" : {
"S7D" : 0x47
},
"package_ids" : {
"S7D" : {
"s905a" : 3,
"s905x5m" : 1
}
},
"bl2_max" : {
"S7D" : 0x43800
},
"bl2_enum" : {
"S7D" : true
}
Is it possible to enable terminal sharing back on?
Of course. Anytime. I’ll start it right away
I’m just looking for an original fw device
Would CE be better in default? Or is it still good?
Dear vpeter,
thank you for your offer to look into this issue. I will enable dev terminal sharing this afternoon and geht back to you.
In original Android ROM > settings > about
Firmware was identified as
“… x96_m200a …”
and the initial slimboxtv version for x96 m200 (i.e. 905X5M) didn’t worked. I needed to wait for them to publish a Version for 905A.
Terminal sharing is on in dev mode for my user Name.
The box is a x96 m200 with an Amlogic S905A probably. Currently it runs slimbox TV version 14.5 successfully
sbx_x96_m200a_atv_14_15.zip
Therefore, the bootloader is unlocked
After update seems both devices are now not booting? Please check.
About | FAQ | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Legal Notice