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-0006.html>