On 4/19/23 00:26, Benson Muite wrote:
Probably each hardware vendor will need to become more involved in
creating an RPM distribution for their use case and providing hardware
for test builds. A single monolithic Fedora will not work. Having a
subset of base packages would be very
On 4/19/23 07:46, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Jeff Law:
Rather than trying to track all the individual extensions and
combinations thereof, I would suggest focusing on RVI defined
profiles. Essentially they provide a set of mandatory features the
architecture must support (to be compliant with
On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 09:26:55AM +0300, Benson Muite wrote:
> Probably each hardware vendor will need to become more involved in
> creating an RPM distribution for their use case and providing hardware
> for test builds. A single monolithic Fedora will not work. Having a
> subset of base
* Jeff Law:
> Rather than trying to track all the individual extensions and
> combinations thereof, I would suggest focusing on RVI defined
> profiles. Essentially they provide a set of mandatory features the
> architecture must support (to be compliant with the profile).
Do at least some of
On 4/15/23 19:56, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 08:38:47AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 4/15/23 00:10, David Abdurachmanov wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> We have to support SCBs as-is. We even have 64-core OoO (and even
>>> dual-socket 128-core) systems coming that are still RVA20 (what
On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 08:38:47AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
> On 4/15/23 00:10, David Abdurachmanov wrote:
>
>
> >
> > We have to support SCBs as-is. We even have 64-core OoO (and even
> > dual-socket 128-core) systems coming that are still RVA20 (what I call
> > "a large scale SBC trying
On 4/15/23 00:25, David Abdurachmanov wrote:
On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 7:08 AM Jeff Law wrote:
On 4/14/23 20:14, Neal Gompa wrote:
We should not screw up with RISC-V in Fedora like RHEL did with ARM.
Yes, I'm saying RHEL's ARM strategy was a mistake, and still is, to
some degree. We
On 4/15/23 00:10, David Abdurachmanov wrote:
We have to support SCBs as-is. We even have 64-core OoO (and even
dual-socket 128-core) systems coming that are still RVA20 (what I call
"a large scale SBC trying to be a server").
I think elsewhere you suggested treating the profile as the
Once upon a time, David Abdurachmanov said:
> I would love to avoid supporting SBCs, especially as some of them are
> really not suitable for feature rich Linux distributions.
For me, my only interest in the foreseeable future for RISC-V would be
SBCs, as an alternative to ARM (e.g. Raspberry
On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 7:08 AM Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/14/23 20:14, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> >>
> >
> > We should not screw up with RISC-V in Fedora like RHEL did with ARM.
> > Yes, I'm saying RHEL's ARM strategy was a mistake, and still is, to
> > some degree. We see aspects of this being
On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 5:30 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 10:01 PM Jeff Law wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4/12/23 10:08, przemek klosowski via devel wrote:
> > >>
> > >> That may rule out certain processors, but it ultimately provides a
> > >> higher performing baseline
On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 5:01 AM Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/12/23 10:08, przemek klosowski via devel wrote:
> >>
> >> That may rule out certain processors, but it ultimately provides a
> >> higher performing baseline architecture for systems that are
> >> (hopefully) going to be good performing
On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 4:49 AM Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/12/23 10:57, David Abdurachmanov wrote:
>
> >
> > We have been focusing and building for RV64GC, which is kinda
> > represented by the RVA20 profile. RVA20 is considered a major profile,
> > but it significantly lacks modern ISA
On 4/14/23 20:14, Neal Gompa wrote:
We should not screw up with RISC-V in Fedora like RHEL did with ARM.
Yes, I'm saying RHEL's ARM strategy was a mistake, and still is, to
some degree. We see aspects of this being walked back now as the
ecosystem didn't go the way RHEL ARM folks hoped,
On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 10:01 PM Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/12/23 10:08, przemek klosowski via devel wrote:
> >>
> >> That may rule out certain processors, but it ultimately provides a
> >> higher performing baseline architecture for systems that are
> >> (hopefully) going to be good performing
On 4/12/23 10:08, przemek klosowski via devel wrote:
That may rule out certain processors, but it ultimately provides a
higher performing baseline architecture for systems that are
(hopefully) going to be good performing parts rather than embedded
focused parts.
Yes, good point, but
On 4/12/23 10:57, David Abdurachmanov wrote:
We have been focusing and building for RV64GC, which is kinda
represented by the RVA20 profile. RVA20 is considered a major profile,
but it significantly lacks modern ISA extensions. There is also RVA22,
which is considered a "minor" profile. The
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 7:08 PM przemek klosowski via devel
wrote:
>
>
> On 4/11/23 22:08, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On 4/11/23 19:14, przemek klosowski via devel wrote:
> >> The situation in the RISC-V universe is even more complicated because
> >> of all the extensions
> >>
> >> ...
> >> Whatever
On 4/11/23 22:08, Jeff Law wrote:
On 4/11/23 19:14, przemek klosowski via devel wrote:
The situation in the RISC-V universe is even more complicated because
of all the extensions
...
Whatever standard scheme Fedora uses for x86 will hopefully be very
useful for RiSC-V era that is apparently
On 4/11/23 19:14, przemek klosowski via devel wrote:
On 4/4/23 10:28, Dan Čermák wrote:
Chris Adams writes:
Yeah, it'd be back to the i386/i586/i686 days... which was a bit of a
PITA sometimes. But cramming multiple architectures of core libraries
into a single RPM would be bad for disk
On 4/4/23 10:28, Dan Čermák wrote:
Chris Adams writes:
Yeah, it'd be back to the i386/i586/i686 days... which was a bit of a
PITA sometimes. But cramming multiple architectures of core libraries
into a single RPM would be bad for disk space, image size, downloads,
etc.
But something that
21 matches
Mail list logo
