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!
It's nice if the clock is more-or-less right before services start.
bind/named resolver doesn't resolve if the clock is horribly out
(DNSSEC?) and it doesn't fix itself after a systemctl restart chronyd,
you need to actually bounce named. Without named things like
'ntp.pool.fedora' don't work, so there's a catch-22.
postgresql can be unhappy on boot. This is clock related, but I can't
replicate it 100% yet.
journald will rotate logs as soon as chronyd syncs the clock. So any
logs from bootup (1970) are lost. That's another reason to get the
clock +- correct as soon as possible.
I'm currently using a cron script to touch a file every 10 minutes, and
read that on bootup (before chronyd), and I've added a
'Requires=touchClock' to some systemd services.
The script is smart enough to refuse to run if it'll move the time
On Sun, 2015-09-27 at 12:37 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> This is likely a problem with your kernel config, make sure that
> you've the axp209 mfd and regulator drivers enabled and loaded.
Thanks, Hans. I really should have figured that out on my own!
Do you think it's worth asking PeterR if he will change the default
Fedora armv7 config to CONFIG_REGULATOR_AXP20X=y rather than the
current CONFIG_REGULATOR_AXP20X=m? (I suspect that request might
carry more weight if it comes from you rather than me. ;)
Clive Messer <clive.m.messer(a)gmail.com>
I have some board not listed in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures/ARM/F22/Installation.
Attempt to run Fedora-KDE-armhfp-22-3-sda did not produce any results on display or ttyS0.
How can I change serial console to ttyS1? On older images one could edit uEnv.txt, but looks like
newer images don't use it anymore.
I would appreciate any advice on what to start from to get Fedora running on this board.