I would like to introduce myself to the group. I have recently
received an IGEPv2 board , which is based on the Beagle Board, but
with wifi, bluetooth, ethernet, and more RAM. I'm still at the "wow,
it's tiny and it runs Linux" stage. I should get a bit more time over
the next month and Christmas to play around properly with it.
I'm new to embedded development, but neither new to Linux nor ARM
(writing my first ARM assembly some 15 years ago). However, for the
past 6 years I've not even built a Linux kernel, preferring to use the
default kernel in Fedora for simplicity :)
Firstly, a thank you to those involved in Fedora ARM for getting it to
this stage. If I get the time, I'd really like to contribute some
(probably small) effort to help get Fedora ARM working well on the
IGEPv2 and Beagle Board. As I progress, I'd like to know what I can
do to help.
In the meantime, I have some questions. Apologies in advance if these
1) There are various different kernels from different sources. I'm
used to there being a small set of "right" kernels (that is, Fedora's
idea of "right") for x86. I fully appreciate that different ARM-based
boards are quite different in capabilities (like different instruction
a) Is there likely to be some standardised vanilla Fedora ARM kernel
source? (Or is that simply the source RPM available for Fedora?)
Then patches /could/ be offered for the more common systems (e.g.
Beagle Board & clones, SheevaPlug).
b) Would it then make sense to offer these as pre-built RPMs for common systems?
c) Is there any guidance on which version is good to use as a base?
I've seen quite different kernel versions being used (from 2.6.27 to
2) I understand a little bit about the different calling conventions,
FP differences (e.g. soft FPU versus VFP), and instruction set
differences (v5 versus v7).
a) Can the kernel can be safely built with a different instruction set
targeted? (I know there are different optimisation options passed to
GCC. Apologies if this seems a bit newbie-ish.)
b) For FP-heavy programs (e.g. ogg encoding), is it possible to build
the packages with VFP/NEON but still get them to work in a soft FPU
system? I'd imagine any call to an external library would have to
somehow be defined to use a different calling standard.
3) There seem to be some missing dependencies in the packages in the
current Fedora ARM repository. For example, emacs is requiring
libotf, which doesn't seem to be there in the repository. And
likewise with the xorg-x11-font* packages needing ttmkdir. I'm
confused as to how the RPM could have been successfully built without
it. What am I missing?
4) I see there has been some discussion over unaligned data access.
(Oh, I remember that from the ARM2 days.) It seems as if the
Cortex-A8 cores allow unaligned data access when set up to do so .
Does this, in any way, help with the compatibility of packages
5) I've managed to get various source packages missing from the Fedora
ARM repositories to compile successfully (natively). I guess there is
a reason why there are not in the repos right now -- is that reason
down to time and priorities, or is there some blocking bugs with many
of these packages?
I look forward to being able to contribute something back into Fedora!
Looks like the missing kernel rpm is starting to cause troubles. I'm
using common kernel and initramfs to provide support for the Kirkwood
based devices like Sheevaplug or the QNAPs and thus need dracut to
create the initramfs. And installing dracut now fails with
[root@fedora-arm ~]# LANG=C yum install dracut
--> Running transaction check
---> Package libdrm.armv5tel 0:2.4.20-1.fc13 set to be updated
--> Processing Dependency: kernel >= 184.108.40.206-52.fc11 for package:
---> Package sgpio.armv5tel 0:220.127.116.11-4.fc12 set to be updated
--> Finished Dependency Resolution
Error: Package: libdrm-2.4.20-1.fc13.armv5tel (fedora)
Requires: kernel >= 18.104.22.168-52.fc11
So the options are - prepare a real kernel rpm (even when it shouldn't
be much useful), prepare a fake kernel package (containing Provides:
kernel=V-R only) or something else.
And I've chosen the fake the kernel method for now, see attachments.
Hello everyone, I tried installing the Fedora 13 beta in the Beagleboard xm
board using these instructions:
with the latest kernel and modules from:
The board boots but I receive the following kernel panic during start up:
Kernel panic - not syncing: Attempted to kill init!
Here's the last few output lines from the serial port before this message:
[ 14.928527] Console: switching to colour frame buffer device 80x30
[ 14.951416] regulator_init_complete: incomplete constraint
s, leaving VAUX3 on
[ 14.958923] regulator_init_complete: incomplete constraints, leaving VDAC
[ 14.966552] omap_vout omap_vout: probed for an unknown device
[ 14.972839] Waiting for root device /dev/mmcblk0p2...
[ 14.978485] usb 2-2: New USB device found, idVendor=0424, idProduct=9514
[ 14.986145] usb 2-2: New USB device strings: Mfr=0, Product=0,
[ 14.995910] hub 2-2:1.0: USB hub found
[ 14.999847] hub 2-2:1.0: 5 ports detected
[ 15.086975] mmc0: new high speed SDHC card at address 1234
[ 15.092926] mmcblk0: mmc0:1234 SA04G 3.67 GiB
[ 15.097778] mmcblk0: p1 p2
[ 15.203521] kjournald starting. Commit interval 5 seconds
[ 15.213500] EXT3-fs (mmcblk0p2): using internal journal
[ 15.218811] EXT3-fs (mmcblk0p2): recovery complete
[ 15.223724] EXT3-fs (mmcblk0p2): mounted filesystem with writeback data
[ 15.230926] VFS: Mounted root (ext3 filesystem) on device 179:2.
[ 15.241882] devtmpfs: mounted
[ 15.244964] Freeing init memory: 204K
[ 15.288787] Kernel panic - not syncing: Attempted to kill init!
Please let me know if you have any suggestions or need any additional
Centro Ceibal - Depto. Técnico - I+D
Avda. Italia 6201 - Edificio Los Ceibos
Montevideo - Uruguay.
Tel.: 2601 57 73 Int. 2232
Is there any particular reason why cryptodev.h is missing from
-DHAVE_CRYPTODEV should really become a default, at least on ARMs, since
most of them seem to have some form of hardware crypto acceleration
(e.g. Marvell ARMs such as what is in the SheevaPlug have hardware
offload engine for SHA1 and AES.)
I have a beagleboard Rev C4 and when I try to load the kernel from memory with bootm command, it shows me an error in the middle of loading kernel. This is the error message:
Waiting 1sec before mounting root device...
mmc0: new high speed SD card at address b368
mmcblk0: mmc0:b368 5 3.83 GiB
VFS: Cannot open root device "b302" or unknown-block(179,2)
Please append a correct "root=" boot option; here are the available partitions:
1f00 512 mtdblock0 (driver?)
1f01 1920 mtdblock1 (driver?)
1f02 128 mtdblock2 (driver?)
1f03 4096 mtdblock3 (driver?)
1f04 255488 mtdblock4 (driver?)
b300 4020224 mmcblk0 driver: mmcblk
b301 4016128 mmcblk0p1
Kernel panic - not syncing: VFS: Unable to mount root fs on unknown-block(179,2)
I changed some environment variables to get result, but it failed with same error.
Could you please help me if you have any idea. Thanks a lot in advance.
CTY student at Seneca
I am a student at Seneca college and new participant in the Fedora Project community. Now, I am working on RPM Kernels on Fedora ARM and looking for someone that can help me if I have any question. I really appreciate from everyone for your time and consideration.
i'm contacting people on all of the ARM linux distribution lists to
find out if anyone is interested in bringing about the creation of a
decent, useful and useable ARM-based Laptop. i've been researching
CPUs and how to go about this with a minimum of risk and cost,
learning from the experiences of the openpandora for example. all of
the enquiries that i've made, for about a year, all point towards a
minimum spec of at least a 1ghz CPU, 1gb of RAM and a 12in screen
(below those specs is too little, and above them is too costly). does
such a machine exist? in one word: no. there are plenty of machines
with 1024x600 screens (the toshiba AC100, the Genesi-USA Ekiga and the
AlwaysInnovating Touchbook) - i wish them every success in their niche
markets that are catered for by 1024x600 screens.
for everyone else, who wants to see full documents and full web pages
*without* having to press page-up, page-down, there literally is not a
single ARM-based (or MIPS-based) product in existence, commercially
available, anywhere in the world, despite a lot of talk from ARM, and
also from the major ARM licensees, and despite the production cost of
ARM-based and MIPS-based laptops being lower than that of an
equivalent intel-based system.
so the question i have, for the people on this list is: given that
nobody else is taking any initiative, would _you_ like to be part of a
project that takes the initiative to create a low-cost, high-end
ARM-based laptop? like the OpenPandora, except... done with far less
risk and a lot less cost. one absolute key part in reducing risk and
cost is to utilise existing casework from a no-brand OEM laptop. all
that's then required is to create the motherboard to fit. more info
a rough guide i've received from a chinese embedded systems designer
is that a design using a Samsung S5PV210 will be about $USD 10,000,
and a design using a TI DM3730 or DM3725 will be about $20,000 (TI's
CPUs are a bit more complex, and the DM37xx series is newer than
Samsung's S5 range)... but that's *it*. that's all it costs, to
create the motherboard for fitting into an existing 12in laptop
chassis. excluding a DVD or Hard Drive, the BOM (Bill of Materials)
will come to somewhere around $150, which translates loosely into $240
to $300 after tax, customs, shipping etc. etc.
i'm still investigating ways to get that price down even further, and
i'm really really interested to hear from people who may know of other
CPUs. i've just heard today about the ZMS-08 for example, and
creativelabs have a SoM (system-on-module) which sounds like a perfect
fit: the only bug-bear being the proprietary libraries and
creativelab's fear over being swamped by developer wannabes asking for
help on how to program one of the most complex Cell Processor Units in
existence outside of IBM's and other obscure labs. the proprietary
libraries aren't so much the problem as the lack of documentation on
the Cell Processor.
so - please do discuss amongst yourselves, or feel free to contact me
directly. i'm maintaining a list of links to all the other forums
this is going out on, at the bottom of http://lkcl.net/laptop.html -
if you would like to recommend an alternative CPU please do review
and/or edit http://libreplanet.org/wiki/Group:Hardware/Processors
first (either the page itself or the discussion page).