On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 09:21:18 +0100, Jiri Denemark wrote: > On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 11:14:00 +0100, Peter Krempa wrote: > > From: Peter Krempa <[email protected]> > > > > Add the test data based on 'v10.2.0-rc1-11-g5a5b06d2f6'. > > > > Note that the data was collected on a Raspberry Pi 5, thus the CPU has > > changed to what we had collected before. > > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Krempa <[email protected]> > > Is this marked as RFC because you generated it on a different host?
It's a combination of factors ... > I don't think the CPU itself should be a problem, we're changing that for > other archs as well since you don't want to keep an ancient machine > prepared somewhere just to keep using the same CPU for regenerating > capabilities data. ... I'm willing to commit and maintain the aarch64 caps as well as long as they are on hardware I have permanent access to. So if we're okay with rpi5 based capabilities I can do them along with the x86 basd ones. The RFC label though is there also that this is qemu-rc1 based already and we didn't have any aarch64 caps for this cycle yet, so I might as well as do them once qemu is released. Jano asked me for them because of some of his patches but I'm not sure if that is relevant. I certainly willing to update them later, so as long as we don't mind the sligt churn, there's nothing really blocking this.
