From owner-freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Sat Feb 15 09:33:31 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arm@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB5EF254777 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2020 09:33:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@x86.ch) Received: from einstein.sui-inter.net (einstein.sui-inter.net [80.74.145.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.sui-inter.net", Issuer "DigiCert SHA2 Secure Server CA" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48KQ6L4VlRz420M for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2020 09:33:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@x86.ch) Received: from [172.20.10.5] (unknown [213.55.225.23]) by einstein.sui-inter.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 96C76B1C037F; Sat, 15 Feb 2020 10:33:27 +0100 (CET) Received-SPF: pass (einstein.sui-inter.net: connection is authenticated) Subject: Re: RPI4 vs AMLOGIC s905x2 / x96max To: Trev , freebsd-arm@freebsd.org References: <7E7605DC-021D-448A-8459-8EC26BA9836D.ref@yahoo.com> <36CF6E4B-5607-4752-B2DF-C265BCFB95BA@yahoo.com> <1BE59567-E669-4A88-8389-2E321B0AC1AE@yahoo.com> <27BE7BAF-FD2C-41C6-B270-4BAF77D1FB0C@yahoo.com> <7465BC0D-3F4C-4CD9-B614-0DF321C94331@yahoo.com> <876C4DBE-A243-425A-9978-209C24387668@yahoo.com> <32D0E068-2E1E-46AA-A907-7974BF4DC46D@yahoo.com> <2DC3F5F2-11EB-44A4-BC45-F5A1E92B509B@googlemail.com> <3333F8A8-591F-4722-9E63-904414974142@yahoo.com> <7B94C1A8-8523-4993-9074-222358FD5C97@googlemail.com> <8d070242-9bc6-a301-8176-2a9511e81aee@sentry.org> From: Adrian Gassmann Message-ID: Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2020 10:33:26 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <8d070242-9bc6-a301-8176-2a9511e81aee@sentry.org> X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 48KQ6L4VlRz420M X-Spamd-Bar: + Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of freebsd@x86.ch has no SPF policy when checking 80.74.145.25) smtp.mailfrom=freebsd@x86.ch X-Spamd-Result: default: False [1.45 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; RECEIVED_SPAMHAUS_PBL(0.00)[23.225.55.213.khpj7ygk5idzvmvt5x4ziurxhy.zen.dq.spamhaus.net : 127.0.0.11]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_GOOD(0.00)[25.145.74.80.rep.mailspike.net : 127.0.0.18]; IP_SCORE(0.27)[ipnet: 80.74.144.0/20(0.79), asn: 21069(0.53), country: CH(0.04)]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[multipart/alternative,text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[x86.ch]; AUTH_NA(1.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_MEDIUM(0.07)[0.072,0]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; NEURAL_SPAM_LONG(0.30)[0.304,0]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW(-0.10)[25.145.74.80.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.1]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+,1:+,2:~]; ASN(0.00)[asn:21069, ipnet:80.74.144.0/20, country:CH]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 X-BeenThere: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Porting FreeBSD to ARM processors." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2020 09:33:31 -0000 Yes that's right Am 15.02.2020 um 01:09 schrieb Trev: > I don't think anyone suggested that the RPi4 was the most interesting > or even the best specified, and certainly not the best documented, SBC. > > It just happens to be the most widely available (locally in most > countries) and most popular overall.