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>
>> > I don't have an issue with ARM (or PPC) builds of the workstation,
>> > I don't think we should decide to make them
>> > 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
>> > a specific
>> > piece of hardware, but also there needs to be a viable roadmap for
>> > 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
>> > 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
>> > code release
>> > is good news in this regard, but I think I personally need to feel
>> > a
>> > officially supported ARM platform needs to be something we can
>> > 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
>> 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
> the 12V jack.
> No idea about the availability, though, but should certainly be capable
> running any of the workstation products... if it can actually
> workstation products...
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.
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
Do you know if f20 is enough for the SoM as well?