Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 11:56:24 +0200 From: Stefan Parvu <sparvu@kronometrix.org> To: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Showstoppers for RPI3 Message-ID: <A13BFE46-0D14-465D-9139-CB208616AF80@kronometrix.org> In-Reply-To: <F4EB9ED4-017D-4CDC-A927-035E1C595CD4@googlemail.com> References: <20200225175446.GA77976@www.zefox.net> <11951E01-EC13-4FBB-938A-AEB5700C4281@yahoo.com> <CACNAnaEiv5NZZz%2BxfETkhSZ-zbjZ3Ya6z7pyteheP4zj3EK1Gg@mail.gmail.com> <20200226052045.GA79939@www.zefox.net> <E866B6BE-7948-4412-82EF-999A2F8C0DF9@googlemail.com> <04e8e290e5d7bb810f76ece4ff33d6e1006e63cd.camel@freebsd.org> <280455B5-E201-494F-A4EB-2426A12B7E2C@googlemail.com> <20200226235908.GD22189@lonesome.com> <F4EB9ED4-017D-4CDC-A927-035E1C595CD4@googlemail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I think FreeBSD should support and have Tier 1 for ARM64 supporting: * a consumer level SBC like RBPI enough well supported (SMP, PowerMgmt, = Wifi, BLE)=20 this would be good for FreeBSD adoption, IoT projects, university, = students. The board=20 is not an industrial board but for 30EUR, it does work for different = use cases very well.=20 * industrial SBC (like ? Rock64 ?, else ?) this would be useful for SME = and other companies=20 to build things around FreeBSD for more serious projects. ARM is moving fast and should we. FreeBSD must list ARM (aarch64) as = Tier 1 supported platform. Talking about NetBSD: can anyone here give a list of what features = NetBSD supports and=20 we dont ? (RBPI 3B/4) I will ask also on their list a bit later. Stefan Parvu sparvu@kronometrix.org > On 27. Feb 2020, at 2.27, Klaus K=C3=BCchemann via freebsd-arm = <freebsd-arm@freebsd.org> wrote: >=20 > Hi Mark, >=20 >> Am 27.02.2020 um 00:59 schrieb Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>: >>=20 >> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 05:11:35PM +0100, Klaus K=C3=BCchemann via = freebsd-arm wrote: >>> but Ed Maste stated a clear aarch64->Tier1-roadmap >>=20 >> I'll try not to speak for Ed here other than to say I know he often = sees >> things from the "aarch64 server box installed in rack" view. And = IIUC >> we do fairly well on those. >=20 > No problem to install a bunch of crappy consumer boards into a = server-rack :-).. just kidding.. >=20 >> Mark Linimon >>=20 >> The problem is that aarch64 has this bewildering variety of hardware; >> some very capable and well-documented, others not so. >>=20 >> IMHO there's no possible way that we can be a first-class platform on >> every single arm board that's ever been made >=20 > It=E2=80=99s all better than we think, it=E2=80=99s just time = consuming and a thing of organization=20 > Maybe not for every board but for nearly every board which is worth .. >=20 >> Mark Linimon >>=20 >>> and it looks funny when we fail in supporting devices while others = do >>=20 >> If NetBSD has drivers, then we should see if there is interest in = porting >> them over. >=20 > Finally a reasonable attitude from someone here, Mark >=20 >> Mark Linimon >>=20 >> (The number of people on the two projects differs a lot, especially = w/rt >> non-x86 platforms, so it's kind of hard to say in general. I do know = we >> are ahead w/rt powerpc64.) >>=20 >> But the real roadblock is the chips whose specs are under NDA. No = one >> seems to have any ideas of how to work around that. So, if we can't >> work around it, and also can't port otherBSD drivers, we are stuck. >=20 > also OpenBSD is very successful active in this discipline=E2=80=A6 > Today I=E2=80=99ve got a Broadcom-Wifi-device to work (with an = openbsd-driver-dev) >=20 >> Am 27.02.2020 um 01:03 schrieb Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>: >>=20 >> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 07:27:37AM -0600, Kyle Evans wrote: >>> This platform is on life support on FreeBSD with exactly maybe two >>> developers doing anything on it >>=20 >> I am hoping that by "this platform" you mean RPI4? >>=20 >> There are certainly more people working on the ports side than just = 2. >>=20 >>> it's highly demotivating to then receive comments like this. >>=20 >=20 >=20 >> I've talked to Klaus as some length and I think part of all this is >> due to a language barrier. >=20 > Thanks Mark, yes, I say sorry again to Kyle and Ian, > Kyle is the one who made the RPI4 booting, > who am I that I could think I had the right to say something bad to = him or other devs ?! . > I couldn't just explain in native English language what I meant.. > Hopefully these sentences do work in yours native English language = :-) >=20 >>=20 >> But it is *very* frustrating to have developers saying "we *must* >> have RPI4" and "we *cannot* have RPI4" -- even for someone like me >> whose only involvement is trying to update documentation. >>=20 >> mcl >=20 > We`lll update the docs, for sure, there=E2=80=99s of course no must = have for any gadget=20 > But there are a lot which work and can be improved e.g. by adopting = drivers from other BSDs, > If here are none available..=20 >=20 > Thank you=20 > Regards > Klaus >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-arm@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arm > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arm-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >=20
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?A13BFE46-0D14-465D-9139-CB208616AF80>