From owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Sat Sep 24 02:56:20 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08CF3BE693D for ; Sat, 24 Sep 2016 02:56:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from markmi@dsl-only.net) Received: from asp.reflexion.net (outbound-mail-210-51.reflexion.net [208.70.210.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B27C074C for ; Sat, 24 Sep 2016 02:56:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from markmi@dsl-only.net) Received: (qmail 10889 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2016 02:30:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rtc-sm-01.app.dca.reflexion.local) (10.81.150.1) by 0 (rfx-qmail) with SMTP; 24 Sep 2016 02:30:23 -0000 Received: by rtc-sm-01.app.dca.reflexion.local (Reflexion email security v8.00.0) with SMTP; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 22:29:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 23047 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2016 02:29:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO iron2.pdx.net) (69.64.224.71) by 0 (rfx-qmail) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 24 Sep 2016 02:29:37 -0000 Received: from [192.168.0.105] (ip70-189-131-151.lv.lv.cox.net [70.189.131.151]) by iron2.pdx.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9A69AEC8A8B; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 19:29:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Mark Millard Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Fwd: 11.0-RELEASE tier level for arm64/aaarch64 and the officially built arm/armv6 variants? Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 19:29:30 -0700 References: <4076CFFA-7BE2-4E1B-A7E8-08FD8FC27D21@dsl-only.net> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, freebsd-arm Message-Id: <332FA120-31E5-4D31-B63E-A0DFDD7DEFC7@dsl-only.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 02:56:20 -0000 [A resend since I forget to list free-arm in the To: the first time.] =46rom https://www.freebsd.org/platforms/arm.html : > 32-bit ARM is officially a Tier 2 architecture, as the FreeBSD project = does not provide official releases or pre-built packages for this = platform due to it primarily targeting the embedded arena. However, = FreeBSD/ARM is being actively developed and maintained, is well = supported, and provides an excellent framework for building ARM-based = systems. FreeBSD/arm supports ARMv4 and ARMv5 processors. FreeBSD/armv6 = supports ARMv6 and ARMv7 processors, including SMP on the latter. "does not provide official releases or pre-built packages"? > # uname -apKU > FreeBSD rpi2 11.0-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 11.0-PRERELEASE #5 r304943M: Sun = Aug 28 03:17:54 PDT 2016 = markmi@FreeBSDx64:/usr/obj/clang/arm.armv6/usr/src/sys/RPI2-NODBG arm = armv6 1100502 1100502 > # pkg search '.*' | wc > 21349 155540 1596736 Will 11.0-RELEASE change the tier level for any of the specific = arm-armv6 variants that have FreeBSD-11.0-*-arm-armv6-*.img* files = built, such as for RPI2? Even if all the officially built arm-armv6 variants stay tier 2, the = wording on the web page likely needs to be changed because so much is = built and available that the above quote claims is not available. Also from https://www.freebsd.org/platforms/arm.html : > Initial support for 64-bit ARM is complete. 64-bit ARM platforms = follow a set of standard conventions, and a single FreeBSD build will = work on hardware from multiple vendors. As a result, FreeBSD will = provide official releases for FreeBSD/arm64 and packages will be = available. FreeBSD/arm64 is on the path to becoming a Tier 1 = architecture. Will 11.0-RELEASE make arm64/aarch64 Tier 1? [I will note that, while there are no official builds for the Pine64 = family (A64 based) that are under the Allwinner arm activity, the SOC's = involved are Cortex-A53 64-bit arm based. They likely do not fit in the = "standard conventions" or arm64/aarch64 would be where they would have = been supported. Some rewording might be appropriate for the above quote = as well.] =3D=3D=3D Mark Millard markmi at dsl-only.net