Arm-dev January 2018

arm-dev@lists.centos.org

16 participants
17 discussions

PHP 7.2 for CentOS 7 armhfp
by Pablo Sebastián Greco 15 Jan '18

15 Jan '18

For those who might be interested we are looking for testers of the new php 7.2 on the armhfp platform. Current status and instructions on https://seven.centos.org/2018/01/php-7-2-for-centos-7-armhfp/ , please test and report back here. Thanks and happy testing! Pablo.

1 0

Why RPi3 under Arm32 rather than AArch64?
by Christopher Ursich 08 Jan '18

08 Jan '18

Hi, all. First-timer here. I am setting up a new Raspberry Pi 3. When I review the AltArch pages, I see that most of the RPi3 coverage is categorized under Arm32, including https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/AltArch/Arm32/RaspberryPi3 I'm under the impression that the RPi3 is actually a AArch64 system. I'm not sure whether I should use http://mirror.centos.org/altarch/7/isos/armhfp/CentOS-Userland-7-armv7hl-Mi… versus http://mirror.centos.org/altarch/7/isos/aarch64/CentOS-7-aarch64-rootfs-7.4… Can a more-experienced person clarify this for me? Thanks, Chris Ursich

5 8

Why RPi3 under Arm32 rather than AArch64?
by Gordan Bobic 08 Jan '18

08 Jan '18

On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 11:35 AM, Johnny Hughes <johnny(a)centos.org> wrote: > On 01/04/2018 04:30 PM, Gordan Bobic wrote: > > Things required to "support" Pi3 aarch64 that aren't already in place in > > core CentOS (or at least I haven't managed to find them): > > > > 1) Pi3 firmware blobs > > Trivially downloadable from > > https://github.com/raspberrypi/firmware/tree/master/boot > > I assume we include those in our armhfp kernel so this is not a problem > for an official CentOS image. > > > > > 2) UEFI bootloader > > There are two options, u-boot and Tianocore. > > My current Pi3 aarch64 image works with u-boot that I grabbed from the > > Fedora 26 image. > > I'm currently trying to get it working with Tianocore from here: > > https://github.com/andreiw/RaspberryPiPkg > > I _almost_ have it working (gets as far as booting grub, but grub then > > doesn't manage to boot up the kernel, almost certainly a dtb issue > > somewhere). > > We kind of need to be able to BUILD this, not just take it from > something else an use it. At least that is certainly preferable. I > suppose we can just include it as a SOURCE for the SRPM, but that is not > ideal. > Yes, I built it from source, so that part won't be a problem. > > > > > 3) Kernel > > I keep my own mainline kernel build for aarch64, loosely based on, IIRC, > > 4.5.x that shipped with CentOS aarch64, but with some modifications. I > > have a build that works on both my X-Gene and the Pi3. You can find it > here: > > http://ftp.redsleeve.org/pub/misc/kernel/aarch64/RPMS/ > > (Note: I only included Pi 3 SoC configuration as of 4.9.73). > > > > So it's not exactly an insurmountable problem, it's just a case off > > dropping a tarball of 5-6 files onto the /boot/efi FAT partition, having > > the appropriate kernel installed in the image, and it should "just work". > > I can have a working image with u-boot EFI as soon as I find half an > > hour to spare. > > The one with Tianocore EFI will take a little longer. > > > > Is there something about OUR generic CentOS 4.9.x kernel SRPM that does > not work if compiled on aarch64: > > http://vault.centos.org/altarch/7.4.1708/experimental/Source > /i386/Source/SPackages/ > > That SRPM is what we use for i386/x86_64 and the generic armhfp kernel. > If we need a new config file, we can likely figure that out. > > We would obviously need to add in whatever is necessary for the firmware > blobs and the pi uboot config, etc. > You will need to build it for aarch64 and add the support for the relevant SoCs and the hardware required to boot on them. Other than that, no, there is no reason unless some of the added patches break something outside of the config being used (something that is not 0-risk in my experience). Other than that the reason I build my own is because when it comes to kernels I am much more comfortable sticking to the LT mainline than a distro modified kernel. I am happy to go into details of why this has been the case for a long time, but that really is something for another thread, and possibly better not a public one. > > I am not opposed to doing this if we can do it right .. which is that it > is secure and reproducible to build and install via the RPMs (the > kernel), which are produced completely produce automatically from the > SRPM .. My kernels are build from SRPMs containing a plain upstream LT kernel with no extra patches. So the method is sound. The only thing I can think of that could potentially break it is if a patch in the CentOS kernel breaks something for SoCs that aren't included in the existing kernel config. > AND for the image, it is completely buildable via a kickstart > file or one of the normal tools and everything does not have to be hand > added, etc. If we can make that happen, then I am happy for us to have > an aarch64 build. > Yes, all of that is doable. > > But, it is odd that the RPI foundation doesn't care enough to make that > happen. > OK, I just lost you there - what part of the above would you consider to be in their remit to do? > > We might get some ideas from the SRPMS these guys do: > > https://www.linux.com/news/learn/intro-to-linux/first-64-bit > -and-enterprise-os-comes-raspberry-pi-3 > I don't really see where the difficulty in any of this is. My intention has always been for the final image to contain nothing in it that wasn't installed from an RPM - and as soon as I have Tianocore working properly, I will produce it. If there is interest in the u-boot UEFI based image, I believe that can already be done (depending on whether any minor changes are required to the u-boot SRPMs from F26). Gordan

2 2

rsyslog.service on a Raspberry Pi3
by Philip Taylor 05 Jan '18

05 Jan '18

Is anyone else having problems with logging? rsyslog fails for me as follows : [root@centos-rpi3 log]# systemctl status rsyslog ● rsyslog.service - System Logging Service Loaded: loaded (/usr/lib/systemd/system/rsyslog.service; enabled; vendor preset: enabled) Active: failed (Result: start-limit) since Fri 2018-01-05 17:48:19 UTC; 6s ago Docs: man:rsyslogd(8) http://www.rsyslog.com/doc/ Process: 862 ExecStart=/usr/sbin/rsyslogd -n $SYSLOGD_OPTIONS (code=killed, signal=SEGV) Main PID: 862 (code=killed, signal=SEGV) Jan 05 17:48:19 centos-rpi3 systemd[1]: rsyslog.service holdoff time over, scheduling restart. Jan 05 17:48:19 centos-rpi3 systemd[1]: start request repeated too quickly for rsyslog.service Jan 05 17:48:19 centos-rpi3 systemd[1]: Failed to start System Logging Service. Jan 05 17:48:19 centos-rpi3 systemd[1]: Unit rsyslog.service entered failed state. Jan 05 17:48:19 centos-rpi3 systemd[1]: rsyslog.service failed. Thanks! Philip.

2 2

Why RPi3 under Arm32 rather than AArch64?
by Gordan Bobic 04 Jan '18

04 Jan '18

They are not the same, one is a disk image, the other is a tarball of the rootfs. I'm putting together a working aarch64 image for myself at the moment, if you are not averse to something that is still work in progress. I can put together an image that works with u-boot UEFI today. What I'm working on at the moment is getting Tianocore UEFI working, because that would put it in line with actually supported systems. Gordan On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 6:26 PM, Christopher Ursich <christopher.ursich@ ursichfamily.org> wrote: > Hi, all. First-timer here. > > I am setting up a new Raspberry Pi 3. When I review the AltArch pages, I > see that most of the RPi3 coverage is categorized under Arm32, including > > https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/AltArch/Arm32/RaspberryPi3 > > I'm under the impression that the RPi3 is actually a AArch64 system. I'm > not sure whether I should use > > http://mirror.centos.org/altarch/7/isos/armhfp/CentOS-Userla > nd-7-armv7hl-Minimal-1708-RaspberryPi3.img.xz > > versus > > http://mirror.centos.org/altarch/7/isos/aarch64/CentOS-7- > aarch64-rootfs-7.4.1708.tar.xz > > Can a more-experienced person clarify this for me? > > Thanks, > > Chris Ursich > > > _______________________________________________ > Arm-dev mailing list > Arm-dev(a)centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/arm-dev > >

1 0

Mainline 4.9.x Kernel bootable on X-Gene, Pi 3 and Others
by Gordan Bobic 02 Jan '18

02 Jan '18

As I mentioned on a different thread recently, I am working on putting together a working Pi 3 image. It's still work in progress, but as of 4.9.73 here: http://ftp.redsleeve.org/pub/misc/kernel/aarch64/ I have a kernel that boots from UEFI grub on MP30-AR0 (u-booot -> Tianocore -> grub2-efi) and Pi 3 (u-boot UEFI -> grub2-efi), still working on getting Tianocore working on the Pi 3. The kernel will probably work on a lot of other boards, too, but I don't have any other aarch64 hardware the hardware so can't test for sure. Fully working image hopefully in a couple of days, and _maybe_ an installer ISO respin after that. Gordan

1 0

CentOS 7 on Raspberry Pi 3 with motion and the Pi Camera module
by Philip Taylor 01 Jan '18

01 Jan '18

Hi, I’m new to this list so I hope this isn’t a repeated question, but my searches haven’t found any matches. I’m trying to use CentOS 7 on a Raspberry Pi 3 with motion and the Raspberry Pi camera module. Has anyone done this successfully, or is it not a supported configuration? Thank you. Philip.

3 5

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

Arm-dev January 2018