[Arm-dev] Why RPi3 under Arm32 rather than AArch64?

[Christopher Ursich]

Thanks for your responses; they do answer my question.

Chris


On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 5:30 PM, Gordan Bobic <gordan at redsleeve.org> 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
>
> 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).
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 9:55 PM, Fabian Arrotin <arrfab at centos.org> wrote:
>
>> On 04/01/18 19:26, Christopher Ursich 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
>>
>> Because we targeted armhfp even for the Pi3 initially, as even the Pi
>> Foundation had no plan to provide/build at the beginning aarch64
>> kernel/code for the pi3
>> TBH (my own opinion) it doesn't even really make sense to use aarch64
>> code on the pi3 itself with such low specs .. only benefit is probably
>> that epel exists for aarch64 vs armhfp and also same tree if you want to
>> deploy to "real" aarch64 nodes in Datacenter ...
>>
>> Now, I'll let Jim (the aarch64 maintainer) explain his plans for aarch64
>> tree for pi3, but at this stage of meltdown and spectre, I guess we all
>> have other urgent things to do too :-)
>>
>> --
>> Fabian Arrotin
>> The CentOS Project | https://www.centos.org
>> gpg key: 56BEC54E | twitter: @arrfab
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Arm-dev mailing list
>> Arm-dev at centos.org
>> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/arm-dev
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180105/a88d28c3/attachment.html>