On Apr 7, 2014 10:58 PM, "Rob Clark" <robdclark@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Liam <liam.bulkley@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mar 23, 2014 6:44 AM, "Peter Robinson" <pbrobinson@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-dragonboard-development-kit-1
> ifc6410: http://www.inforcelive.com/index.php?route=product/product&filter_name=ifc6410&product_id=53
>
> 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