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>