On Apr 8, 2014 12:02 AM, "Rob Clark" robdclark@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Liam liam.bulkley@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 7, 2014 10:58 PM, "Rob Clark" robdclark@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Liam liam.bulkley@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 23, 2014 6:44 AM, "Peter Robinson" pbrobinson@gmail.com
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-drago...
ifc6410:
http://www.inforcelive.com/index.php?route=product/product&filter_name=i...
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)
... and that's why I asked:) Thanks for the clarification.
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)
It was device tree that I was mainly thinking about and given how board specific those files are, I wasnt sure that even if it was literally, as you say above, that it could still be enabled with the same dts.
Best/Liam