On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 12:56 PM, Johnny Hughes <johnny@centos.org> wrote:

On 01/08/2018 06:06 AM, Gordan Bobic wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 11:35 AM, Johnny Hughes <johnny@centos.org
> <mailto:johnny@centos.org>> wrote:
>
> On 01/04/2018 04:30 PM, Gordan Bobic wrote:
> 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.
>
>

The only patches we have were from the Fedora 4.9.x kernel and we also
follow the 4.9 LTS upstream kernel. If you could use this SRPM, it
would make it easier to roll into CentOS later (if that is your intention):

http://vault.centos.org/altarch/7.4.1708/experimental/Source/i386/Source/SPackages/

I can probably do that and destill it down to a difference in the kernel build config file.

All I am saying is that the vanilla unpatched kernel works. Whether any distro patches will break with the required changes to the config - that remains to be seen (it wouldn't be the first time).

> 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?
>
>

They provide the default kernel sources for the rpi3 .. one would think
they would provide 64 bit software for it. I have no issue with us
doing it, obviously.

AFAICT everything is in 4.9 mainline kernel, so I don't really see what else they could possibly do.