On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Liam <liam.bulkley@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Apr 7, 2014 10:58 PM, "Rob Clark" <robdclark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> 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 > > To be clear, you're saying f20 currently supports the apq8074? The newer > kernel would be needed to make gaming a possibility, but not for hardware > enablement? well, not quite.. what is missing from f20 userspace amounts to: * xf86-video-freedreno * newer mesa & libdrm The remaining improvements vs mesa 10.1 (for games, etc) are all userspace (mesa) and are all on mesa master. For anyone who has a dragonboard/ifc6410/etc, for f20 I recommend: http://blog.kwizart.fr/post/2014/03/02/163-mesa-10.2-from-git-for-Fedora-20 (but I expect this all to be in f21) > Do you know if f20 is enough for the SoM as well? userspace should be the same for the SoM. But for upstream kernel maybe there is need for a different .dts file. (but that said, I think the dragonboard is just the SoM + carrier board, so maybe from kernel perspective it looks the same as the full dragonboard) BR, -R > Best/Liam > > > -- > desktop mailing list > desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
