On Mar 23, 2014 6:44 AM, "Peter Robinson" <pbrobinson(a)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...
<snip>