Re: Proposal to replace/extend current armhf builders
Thanks for the details Peter,
On 11/15/2013 06:03 PM, peter green wrote:
Steve McIntyre wrote:
if we're happy that they're stable and supportable.
>
Having had a 2GB nitrogen6x running as a raspbian buildd for a while I
would consider it "stable and supportable". We did have some crashes on
both the nitrogen6x and the wandboard quad caused by the eglibc
testsuite in the past but since upgrading to 3.11.0-armv7-x13 that
seems to have stopped happening.
Adding a heatsink is reccomended, the IMX6 gets bloody hot without one.
http://uk.farnell.com/jsp/search/productdetail.jsp?SKU=2084441
We have those in stock.
Kernel wise I currently run one of robert nelsons "mainstream based"
kernels (partly so I can run the same kernel on my nitrogen6x and my
wandboard quads). I'd be happy to test a debian kernel though if people
want (now I have the four wanboards at bytemark I can more easilly
afford to pull the "test" autobuilders out of the pool for testing stuff).
Bootloader wise I patched up uboot to combine the support for booting
plain zimages/initrds (I HATE uImages) with support for the 2GB
nitrogen6x. I posted details of this to debian-arm some time back.
Note that these are now in main-line U-Boot.
Regards,
Eric
Reply to: