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-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)
>
... 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