Arm-dev

arm-dev@lists.centos.org

686 discussions

Kernel problems on APM X-Gene
by Gordan Bobic 29 Jan '18

29 Jan '18

Apologies for taking so long to return to this thread, it took way longer than expected to get to the machine and get it up and running again. I also just updated the build to the latest 4.9.60. Here is a download link to both binaries and src.rpm (download the kernel tarball from kernel.org manually to build from src.rpm): http://ftp.redsleeve.org/pub/misc/kernel/aarch64/RPMS/ http://ftp.redsleeve.org/pub/misc/kernel/aarch64/SRPMS/ To recap - I am also running with Tianocore EFI chain-loaded from u-boot, and mainling 4.9.x boots just fine on it. No need for disabling ACPI on the kernel command line, no need to run EFI firmware as a 1st stage boot loader, it just works. Do feel free to try it - if that works for you but the distro supplied 4.5.x kernel doesn't, it seems reasonably conclusive that it is the CentOS kernel that is broken for this board. I'd also be interested in learning whether you have any luck getting PCIe cards to work with it without problems - I haven't tried it since upgrading to 4.9.x, but certainly on 4.4.x mainline the machine used to reliably lock up as soon as the driver for the PCIe card loads. Gordan On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Jeremiah Rothschild <jeremiah(a)franz.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 11:59:00AM +0100, Gordan Bobic wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Jeremiah Rothschild < > jeremiah(a)franz.com> > > wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 11:39:19AM +0100, Gordan Bobic wrote: > > > > If you are interested, I'm more than happy to share my src.rpm for > 4.9.x, > > > > but won't be able to get to it before tomorrow morning as the > machine was > > > > recently mothballed. > > > > > > Thanks. I actually need to test with as new of a version as I can > because I > > > have been experiencing an occasional "page allocation failure" kernel > > > panic. > > > No idea if/when that was fixed but I figure the newest version is my > best > > > hope. > > > > > > > I've been on my own 4.9.x more or less since I got the machine, it was in > > 24/7 use, and I never experienced that issue. So it may be worth a > > cross-check with the kernel that I'm running to see whether the fault > > follows your machine or whether it is kernel dependent. > > You're right. It would be a good extra data point. Feel free to mail me > directly once you're sorted and I'll gladly check out your 4.9 build. > Thanks > again! > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Arm-dev mailing list > > Arm-dev(a)centos.org > > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/arm-dev > > _______________________________________________ > Arm-dev mailing list > Arm-dev(a)centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/arm-dev >

3 7

Kernel problems on APM X-Gene
by Gordan Bobic 26 Jan '18

26 Jan '18

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 9:34 AM, Jeremiah Rothschild <jeremiah(a)franz.com> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 04, 2017 at 05:37:54PM +0000, Gordan Bobic wrote: > > Apologies for taking so long to return to this thread, it took way longer > > than expected to get to the machine and get it up and running again. > > Thanks for the update & apologies as well on my delayed follow-up. > > Last time I wrote the mailing list about my kernel problems, I was > told (by jperrin(a)centos.org) that my system was not in a supported state > because I was daisy-chaining Tianocore EFI via U-Boot. I was directed to > flash the Tianocore firmware and remove U-Boot from the equation. Although > I > was skeptical of this answer, I finally was able to do this. > > Unfortunately, however, this does not change behavior. I still cannot > successfully boot into any kernels beyond 4.5 unless I use 'acpi=off'. > > I am, interestingly enough, able to run the 4.9.60 kernel that you > supplied. > > So: > > (1) My experience leads me to believe that it is still a possibility that a > kernel related bug exists. > > (2) I am confused as to why your kernel worked. I built > kernel-alt-4.11.0-22.el7a from source and it fails like the others. Were > there any special steps you took in building the rpm's you supplied me? > What config file did you use? It looks like looking at the config diff may shed some light on what the difference might be. > > (3) Is it true that you are able to boot into the (> 4.5) distro-supplied > kernels? Or have you only tried/succeeded with your custom builds? > Unfortunately I cannot confirm that. I haven't used distro supplied kernels since the first week I got the motherboard due to the 64KB default page size. I needed it to be able to run armv5tel and armv7hl docker containers. Gordan

1 0

Testing CentOS on ARM device.
by Javier Romero 25 Jan '18

25 Jan '18

Hi People, Hope everything is fine there. Have a Raspberry PI 3 and would like to know if you also need help testing CentOS on this type of Hardware. Thanks for your attention. Javier Romero E-mail: xavinux(a)gmail.com Skype: xavinux

2 3

CentOS 7 with Linux 4.14
by Thomas F. Burdick 23 Jan '18

23 Jan '18

Hi, I'd like to try to install CentOS on an Odroid Xu4 board I have. The board is supposed to be supported by the mainline 4.14 kernel. From what I've gathered, it should be possible to build an image with the 4.14 kernel (possibly taken from Fedora) and a CentOS 7 system. But I haven't found instructions on how to go about assembling such an image. Could anyone give any pointers? Or would I be better off just using Fedora? Thanks for your help, Thomas -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

4 4

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 09 Jan '18

09 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 06 Jan '18

06 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 05 Jan '18

05 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

← Newer
1
...
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
...
69
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

Arm-dev