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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/arm-dev/attachments/20180104/45821a88/attachment-0006.html>