Arm-dev

arm-dev@lists.centos.org

1 participants
685 discussions

Centos specific patch for uboot images
by Mark Verlinde 20 Sep '19

20 Sep '19

First of all congratulations and thanks for the latest 7.7 release; updated several systems without issues! As mentioned in an other conversation it is the logical continuation of 7.6-updates nevertheless found some nice surprises in the armhfp and especially aarch64 extras repository's including updated u-boot images This being said it saddens me to see in the source file of the uboot-tools-2019.07-3 they still carry a Fedora specific patch. While it is not a difficult fix the get centosisms in. Especially since the upstream maintainer (intentionally?) reverted the order of first two distro specific patches. (This makes a clean patch possible without patching the patch.) I know it is not a encouraged to boot aarch64 on our SBC's, nor is it my objective to promote this. But an easy route I use for over an year is though uboot-uefi boot > grub2. And have to say I like it a lot, with an (serial)monitor attracted you can choose the kernel in grub2; or partion you want to boot (if you happen to feel to be inclined to have a multiboot-environment) after re-basing to uboot-tools-2019.07-3 ( https://github.com/markVnl/rpms-uboot-tools/compare/centos...el7 ) these two patches do the job for me: >From 98a2c15275a5fe154cf80344b7538d72ecb00645 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Mark Verlinde <mark(a)havak.nl> Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 13:29:10 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] uefi use Centos specific path name --- uefi-use-Centos-specific-path-name.patch | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 50 insertions(+) create mode 100644 uefi-use-Centos-specific-path-name.patch diff --git a/uefi-use-Centos-specific-path-name.patch b/uefi-use-Centos-specific-path-name.patch new file mode 100644 index 0000000..14abac1 --- /dev/null +++ b/uefi-use-Centos-specific-path-name.patch @@ -0,0 +1,50 @@ +From dd6a7a9726e5d79bb053d3ab0a8b0ae273140bce Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 +From: Mark Verlinde <mark(a)havak.nl> +Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2018 15:28:56 +0100 +Subject: [PATCH 1/1] uefi use Centos specific path name + +Signed-off-by: Mark Verlinde <mark(a)havak.nl> +--- + include/config_distro_bootcmd.h | 10 +++++----- + 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) + +diff --git a/include/config_distro_bootcmd.h b/include/config_distro_bootcmd.h +index 47e98e14ac..aa4b24d4de 100644 +--- a/include/config_distro_bootcmd.h ++++ b/include/config_distro_bootcmd.h +@@ -92,9 +92,9 @@ + + #ifdef CONFIG_EFI_LOADER + #if defined(CONFIG_ARM64) +-#define BOOTEFI_NAME "bootaa64.efi" ++#define BOOTEFI_NAME "grubaa64.efi" + #elif defined(CONFIG_ARM) +-#define BOOTEFI_NAME "bootarm.efi" ++#define BOOTEFI_NAME "grubarm.efi" + #elif defined(CONFIG_X86_RUN_32BIT) + #define BOOTEFI_NAME "bootia32.efi" + #elif defined(CONFIG_X86_RUN_64BIT) +@@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ + "bootefi bootmgr ${fdtcontroladdr};" \ + "fi;" \ + "load ${devtype} ${devnum}:${distro_bootpart} " \ +- "${kernel_addr_r} efi/boot/"BOOTEFI_NAME"; " \ ++ "${kernel_addr_r} efi/centos/"BOOTEFI_NAME"; " \ + "if fdt addr ${fdt_addr_r}; then " \ + "bootefi ${kernel_addr_r} ${fdt_addr_r};" \ + "else " \ +@@ -165,9 +165,9 @@ + "run boot_efi_binary\0" \ + "scan_dev_for_efi=" \ + "if test -e ${devtype} ${devnum}:${distro_bootpart} " \ +- "efi/boot/"BOOTEFI_NAME"; then " \ ++ "efi/centos/"BOOTEFI_NAME"; then "\ + "echo Found EFI removable media binary " \ +- "efi/boot/"BOOTEFI_NAME"; " \ ++ "efi/centos/"BOOTEFI_NAME"; " \ + "run scan_dev_for_dtb; " \ + "echo EFI LOAD FAILED: continuing...; " \ + "fi; " \ +-- +2.16.5 + -- 1.8.3.1 >From a4ac56bf5b7baa15eca75870a8fdca6defc5e8ff Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Mark Verlinde <mark(a)havak.nl> Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 13:44:43 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Add Centosisms --- uboot-tools.spec | 16 +++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/uboot-tools.spec b/uboot-tools.spec index 226bbb6..91b3faf 100644 --- a/uboot-tools.spec +++ b/uboot-tools.spec @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ Name: uboot-tools Version: 2019.07 -Release: 3%{?candidate:.%{candidate}}%{?dist} +Release: 4%{?candidate:.%{candidate}}%{?dist} Summary: U-Boot utilities License: GPLv2+ BSD LGPL-2.1+ LGPL-2.0+ URL: http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot @@ -14,11 +14,18 @@ Source3: aarch64-boards Source4: aarch64-chromebooks Source5: 10-devicetree.install -# Fedoraisms patches +# Fedora/CentOS-isms patches # Needed to find DT on boot partition that's not the first partition Patch1: uefi-distro-load-FDT-from-any-partition-on-boot-device.patch + # Needed due to issues with shim -Patch2: uefi-use-Fedora-specific-path-name.patch +%if 0%{?centos} +# CentOSisms +Patch2: uefi-use-Centos-specific-path-name.patch +%else +# Fedoraisms +Patch3: uefi-use-Fedora-specific-path-name.patch +%endif # Board fixes and enablement Patch5: usb-kbd-fixes.patch @@ -265,6 +272,9 @@ cp -p board/warp7/README builds/docs/README.warp7 %endif %changelog +* Thu Aug 29 2019 Mark Verlinde <mark.verlinde(a)gmail.com> 2019.07-4 +- Add conditional CentOS specific EFI location + * Sun Aug 4 2019 Peter Robinson <pbrobinson(a)fedoraproject.org> 2019.07-3 - Fixes for Rock960 - Iniital Raspberry Pi 4 support -- 1.8.3.1

2 1

CentOS - Support for 7.6
by Stephan Guilloux 20 Sep '19

20 Sep '19

Hi there, Now that CentOS 7.7 is out, for how long the 7.6 will be supported ? Support is stopped immediately, or will it be supported for a few weeks/months ? Kind regards. Stephan.

4 4

CentOS 8 and RPI 2/3
by filbar＠centrum.cz 18 Sep '19

18 Sep '19

Hello I hear, that CentOS 8 will arrive next week. Will be there support for RPI 2/3 boards in it? Thanks, Filip Bartmann

2 1

Run C7 armhfp as VM on x86_64?
by Ian Pilcher 17 Sep '19

17 Sep '19

It sure seems like this should be possible, but Googling about and clicking around in virt-manager hasn't really gotten me anywhere. Are there instructions anywhere on how to do this? Thanks! -- ======================================================================== Ian Pilcher arequipeno(a)gmail.com -------- "I grew up before Mark Zuckerberg invented friendship" -------- ========================================================================

6 10

RPI 4B status ?
by Stephan GUILLOUX 22 Aug '19

22 Aug '19

Hi all Is there any status on CentOS running on RPI 4B ? Working ? Not working ? Stephan.

2 3

64 bit image for Raspberry Pi
by Iván Chavero 13 Aug '19

13 Aug '19

Hello, Is there a 64 bit image for Raspberry Pi 3+? If not, is there a guide to build a 64 bit image for it? Cheers, Iván

1 0

Missing some debuginfo packages on armv7hl
by Gordan Bobic 08 Aug '19

08 Aug '19

I'm still trying to hunt down where this SIGILL I'm hitting is coming from, and the next obstacle I've hit is some missing debuginfo packages, specifically: libGLEW-debuginfo libXau-debuginfo libXext-debuginfo mesa-libGLU-debuginfo Any chance those could be added the the debuginfo repository? Without them gdb chokes before it gets to the SIGILL line. Gordan

2 13

Tracking Down "Illegal instruction" Sources
by Gordan Bobic 17 Jul '19

17 Jul '19

I'm trying to track down the executables/libraries that are behind the "Illegal instruction" errors I am seeing on my Tegra 2 devices. It seems a given that this is due to some packages from the GL stack (Mesa, libglvnd, etc.) having been build with assumptions of NEON always being present, but I'm trying to figure out a way to determine this definitively. I have tried the approach along the lines of: objdump -Ds $file | grep -E 'vadd\.|vmul\.' since vadd and vmul are both NEON assembly instructions, but this seems to flag up nearly everything, most of which is in fact working (e.g. Firefox 52.x). So either my approach is wrong or there are many binaries that do some kind of runtime detection and selectively use NEON if supported by the hardware. The reason i am looking into this is because gdm doesn't work without working GL (even software mesa GL). It works on my Chromebook without hardware accelerated drivers, but doesn't work on my Tegra laptop without accelerated drivers. On the Chromebook (Exynos) glxgears runs (albeit slowly), but on Tegra, it crashes with "Illegal instruction". I tried rebuilding libglvnd and mesa on the local machine in a hope that NEON capability is auto-detected but that doesn't seem to have made any difference. Any advice/suggestions/insights gratefully received.

3 3

CentOS and Raspberry Pi 4 (four)
by Winfried de Heiden 10 Jul '19

10 Jul '19

3 3

Mesa and NEON
by Gordan Bobic 02 Jul '19

02 Jul '19

Is mesa built with NEON on armv7hl? I'm finding that various things outright crash with an illegal instruction on Tegra 2, and NEON is the only reason I can think of. If it's built with NEON on armv7hl, it really shouldn't be since NEON isn't mandatory on ARMv7.

1 0

← Newer
1
...
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
...
69
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

Arm-dev