On Mar 23, 2014 6:44 AM, "Peter Robinson" <email@example.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...