On Apr 7, 2014 10:58 PM, "Rob Clark" <robdclark(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Liam <liam.bulkley(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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...
fyi:
dragonboard:
http://shop.intrinsyc.com/products/snapdragon-800-series-apq8074-based-dr...
ifc6410:
http://www.inforcelive.com/index.php?route=product/product&filter_nam...
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?
Do you know if f20 is enough for the SoM as well?
Best/Liam