On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 10:08:13PM +0300, valerij zaporogeci wrote: > 2017-08-14 10:21 GMT+03:00, Alex Naumov <alexander_nau...@opensuse.org>: > > Hello, > > > > there is one enthusiast, who wants to make it possible: > > http://openbsd-archive.7691.n7.nabble.com/Working-on-support-for-Pinebook-td318562.html > > > > I don't know the current state, but I also have a Pinebook and would > > like to run OpenBSD on it. > > > > > > Some info you can find there: https://www.openbsd.org/arm64.html > > ====== > > The Pine64 currently requires an image based on a non-redistributable > > boot0 file from Allwinner to be installed on the system disk. This > > will hopefully be resolved by a replacement in a future U-Boot > > release. The install media does not include these boot images or a > > Pine64 device tree. For similar reasons we do not provide install > > media for the Firefly-RK3399 either. > > ======
Correction: The problem of the boot0 file has been solved thanks to changes in u-boot. Work on install media for the Pine64 is now in progress, without unredistributable blobs. > > > > So, it seems that it's impossible yet. > > > > > > Cheers, > > Alex > > > > this boot0 thing is a part of the firmware. why its redistributability > state should influence an OS support? are x86 BIOS parts all > redistributable? > > Is it obtainable? This is that "security world" thing and it will be > anywhere where the Security Extension is implemented. I have Pine64+ > board and am planning to do my project on it, which is a UEFI > implementation. x^D Will be OpenBSD happy if there were UEFI on it as > a FW and that boot0 thing is a part of UEFI installation? >
