On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Liam <liam.bulkley@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mar 23, 2014 6:44 AM, "Peter Robinson" <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > I don't have an issue with ARM (or PPC) builds of the workstation, but >> > I don't think we should decide to make them officially supported >> > platforms >> > before we feel very certain there is a viable community and ecosystem >> > around >> > them to make the product workable medium to long term on those >> > platforms. >> > This means of cause the basic lithmus test of having the shell 'work' on >> > a specific >> > piece of hardware, but also there needs to be a viable roadmap for that >> > hardware >> > going forward. I mean I don't want a situation where we declare ARM >> > supported >> > because someone got a build working on a specific dev board, only to >> > have the >> > manufacturer of that devboard switch GPU provider in the next iteration >> > and leave >> > us without a working open driver. >> >> Believe me you are not alone in that regard, it's a discussion the ARM >> people have on a regular basis. We've already had one vendor and >> another SoC go from hero to zero in a short period of time :-) >> >> > Rob Clark is doing stellar work on Freedreno and the new Broadcom source >> > code release >> > is good news in this regard, but I think I personally need to feel that >> > a >> > officially supported ARM platform needs to be something we can believe >> > will >> > continue to exist and not a one shot 'the stars aligned for us' >> > situation. >> >> Personally I'm not sure either of those are of much value. The QCom >> devices are primarily used in phones which aren't really targets for >> Fedora ARM. There's currently one dev board I'm aware of and it's not >> widely available and it's not currently anywhere on our roadmap when >> it comes to the kernel. >> > I'm guessing you're referring to this: http://mydragonboard.org/db8074/ > Although listed as a SoM, it looks like the carrier board is optional with > the 12V jack. > No idea about the availability, though, but should certainly be capable of > running any of the workstation products... if it can actually run any of the > workstation products... fyi: dragonboard: http://shop.intrinsyc.com/products/snapdragon-800-series-apq8074-based-dragonboard-development-kit-1 ifc6410: http://www.inforcelive.com/index.php?route=product/product&filter_name=ifc6410&product_id=53 Both are running (the same) f20 userspace + latest mesa/libdrm + xf86-video-freedreno (sorry, I'm lagging on updating for review comments for the .spec file) + custom kernel. Gnome-shell works perfectly. As do most of the games packaged in fedora that I have tried. (xonotic, supertuxkart, etc) f21 should have a new enough mesa. For just gnome-shell 10.1.x should be enough.. for games, you'll want newer. The missing piece is an upstream kernel. But we are getting there. BR, -R > <snip> > > > -- > desktop mailing list > desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
