Hi Grant,

Just seen this - out at DebConf in Taiwan this week.

David - can you expand on your point [4] below please? Not sure what
you're referring to with limited context...

On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 03:06:26PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
>[Looping in Steve McIntyre]
>
>Steve, are you to comment on the 64-bit Arm support in Debian that David
>was running into?
>
>g.
>
>On 30/07/2018 13:16, David Rusling wrote:
>> Success.   I now have a u-boot built on Arm64 that works.   Along the
>> way I learnt various things:
>> 
>> [1] Raspberry Pi's first stage loader generates the device tree.
>>   Overlays are used to turn various things on (for example sound) at
>> boot time.
>> 
>> [2] There's a big difference between fdt_addr and fdt_addr_r, depending
>> on whether you're running mainstream u-boot or rpi u-boot.
>> 
>> [3] RPI3 is not really fully upstream, various bits always need to be
>> added.  In other words, RPi, like a lot of Arm boards has its own
>> mediated kernel tree, u-boot tree etc
>> 
>> [4] There's not yet a standard 64 bit aarch64 release of Debian buster
>> (9).   That's terrible progress.   I managed to build my own but not
>> without a lot of faffing about.
>> 
>> [5] Yocto / OE does not build natively arm on arm (as well as taking a
>> very long time on a RPi 3)
>> 
>> I should take my notes and write this 'folklore' up, but it is a mess
>> compared to pretty much any Intel board.  The shame is that the
>> Raspberry Pi is probably the best supported aarch64 device that there is...
>> 
>> David
>> 
>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 at 17:56 David Rusling <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> 
>>     Tom,
>>        thanks, I appreciate all of your hard work, the code base looks
>>     good..
>>     David
>> 
>>     On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 at 16:11 Tom Rini <[email protected]
>>     <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> 
>>         On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 01:55:51PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
>>          > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 1:46 PM, David Rusling
>>         <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>          > > Peter,
>>          > >    thanks, that was one explanation that I hadn't thought
>>         of (32b = 32
>>          > > bits).   Really helpful, onwards and upwards...
>>          >
>>          > FYI they work fine 32 and 64 bits on both the 3B and 3B+ for
>>         me, only
>>          > currently tested 64 bit with uefi but they work fine for me,
>>         plus a
>>          > bunch of other 96boards.
>> 
>>         A Pi 3B is also in my CI loop (32bit then 64bit) so our (U-Boot's)
>>         test.py bits run on it reliably or I start yelling at people :)
>> 
>>         --
>>         Tom
>> 
>>     --
>>     David A Rusling
>>     CTO, Linaro
>>     https://linaro.org
>> 
>> --
>> David A Rusling
>> CTO, Linaro
>> https://linaro.org
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Arm.ebbr-discuss mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> 
>
>IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are 
>confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended 
>recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the 
>contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the 
>information in any medium. Thank you.
>
Cheers,
-- 
Steve McIntyre                                [email protected]
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs

_______________________________________________
boot-architecture mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture

Reply via email to