[Arm-dev] Why RPi3 under Arm32 rather than AArch64?
Fabian Arrotin
arrfab at centos.orgThu Jan 4 21:55:40 UTC 2018
- Previous message: [Arm-dev] Why RPi3 under Arm32 rather than AArch64?
- Next message: [Arm-dev] Why RPi3 under Arm32 rather than AArch64?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/arm-dev/attachments/20180104/77eb03c0/attachment-0002.sig>
- Previous message: [Arm-dev] Why RPi3 under Arm32 rather than AArch64?
- Next message: [Arm-dev] Why RPi3 under Arm32 rather than AArch64?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Arm-dev mailing list