[Arm-dev] List of 64-bit hardware for testing?

[miniNodes Info]

The Lenovator HiKey board Jim mentioned can be found here:  http://www.lenovator.com/product/90.html  That is a 2gb RAM, 8gb eMMC, 8-core ARM64 board.   They also offer a 1gb RAM version as well:  http://www.lenovator.com/product/86.html
Also worth mentioning, the Qualcomm Dragonboard 410c finally has been restocked and has availability now, located here:  https://www.arrow.com/en/products/dragonboard410c/arrow-development-tools#page-1
The URL for the PINE64 board is simply http://pine64.com.  That product is still being developed and funded via Kickstarter, so there is no general availability on that one quite yet.
-David



> To: arm-dev at centos.org
> From: rgm at htt-consult.com
> Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 18:41:46 -0500
> Subject: Re: [Arm-dev] List of 64-bit hardware for testing?
> 
> 
> 
> On 12/23/2015 06:28 PM, Jim Perrin wrote:
> >
> > On 12/23/2015 05:01 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> >> I've been lurking for a while hoping to see someone call out some
> >> specs, but I don't recall seeing them. My apologies in advance of this
> >> is a redundant question.
> >>
> >> I'm interested in inexpensive hardware to test for arm64/aarch64, but
> >> I'm having trouble finding them.
> > Everyone is. It's not as widely available as I'd like yet.
> >
> >> For example, [1] lists a X-C1 Basic dev board, but its $1495 USD [2]
> >> (add $1000 USD for the Plus kit). Another example is the AMD Opteron
> >> A1100 dev kit at $3000 USD [6]. As another example, I purchased both
> >> an HTC 510 Desire and a Samsung Galaxy Core-Prime because both were
> >> supposed to be 64-bit ARMv8 [3,4]. But after the press release and
> >> conversion to the US market, they arrived as 32-bit ARMv7.
> >>
> >> First question... Does Cent maintain a list of inexpensive hardware
> >> for testing? If so, would someone point me to it? I understand the
> >> list is subjective and it will become stale over time. That's a
> >> different problem (and a problem I wish I had).
> >
> > Not really. As the arm64 maintainer I can share the list of what I have
> > for testing, and what I would recommend for cheap.
> >
> >
> > What we build/test against currently:
> >
> > 1. APM mustang board, which you've already listed above.
> > 2. AMD Seattle board, which you've also listed above.
> > 3. Cavium ThunderX.
> >
> > These are mostly server platforms and aren't cheap for the home user.
> >
> > What I'd recommend:
> >
> > Keep an eye on 96boards.com. They have a Hikey, and will soon have a
> > Huskey board which should work ootb. These are both far less expensive.
> >
> > Lenovator offers a Hikey with more ram and a larger emmc. It's roughly
> > $100 (US).
> 
> Interesting.  Can you provide a URL for this board and such.  A 
> Cubietruck is ~$90.  So this is a very interesting data point.
> 
> >
> > Gigabyte's MP30-AR0 board (based on APM's mustang) should work with
> > CentOS OOTB as well, and will hopefully be reasonably priced.
> >
> > Soon I'll have a pine64 board as well. I'm hoping to be able to add that
> > to the list of things we support.
> >
> >> Second question... Or, is it possible to get SSH access to one of the
> >> machines provided by Applied Micro or AMD [1,6]? GNU has a compile
> >> farm (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CompileFarm) I can test with, and I'm
> >> wondering if Cent does the same.
> >
> > Sadly, no. We don't have enough to offer up ssh access. We will be
> > adding an aarch64/arm64 box to the community build service though, so
> > you would be able to build against the platform, but no direct ssh access.
> >
> >
> >> Last question... Has anyone tried using the Android TV boxes [5] for
> >> testing? They appear to be inexpensive (around $100 USD) and some
> >> appear to be ARMv8 with multiple 64-bit cores (Cortex-A53 and
> >> Cortex-A57).
> > I haven't, but keep in mind not all ARM is created equal. We've built
> > things up to target the server standards, SBBR and SBSA. The TL;DR there
> > for most folks is "boots via UEFI". Lots of the lower end boxen like the
> > Android TV are using uboot with custom kernel support, etc. This means
> > that the userspace should work, but actually booting the box would be
> > questionable, depending on if the vendor's done something funky with the
> > kernel, uboot, etc.
> >
> >> (Its definitely like Perrin said, "Hardware really is the best sort of
> >> gift..." [6]).
> > It absolutely is, and I'm hoping it becomes more generally available
> > early in 2016. I'd love to have a larger community who can engage and
> > participate.
> >
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Arm-dev mailing list
> Arm-dev at centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/arm-dev
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/arm-dev/attachments/20151223/74f01bfa/attachment.html>