+++ Andrew M.A. Cater [2016-03-06 17:40 +0000]: > On Sun, Mar 06, 2016 at 08:34:23AM -0800, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > > Cc'ed correct debian-arm address... > > > > On 2016-03-06, Holger Levsen wrote: > > > On Sonntag, 6. März 2016, Axel Beckert wrote: > > >> I now wonder if a bunch of Raspberry Pi 3 -- since they have 64-bit > > >> CPUs (IIRC an Allwinner A53T) -- would make us able to check > > >> reproducible-builds for Debian arm64, too. AIUI it only runs in 32bit mode due to binary blob startup bodgery so can only run armhf until someone fixes that. Hopefully that won't take too long. But 1G RAM is not uch use for a buildd these days. > > > as far as I know, yes. Though I would want to use some other arm64 boards as > > > well, to have hardware variety right from the start. for example: > > > http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/RasPi-Angreifer-Odroid-C2-Schneller- > > > etwas-teurer-aber-ohne-WLAN-3123182.html also has an arm64 cpu, but twice > > > as much ram (2gb) as the raspi3 and 2 ghz cores instead of 1.2 ghz ones on the > > > raspi3. *buntu also has a new arm64 developer/reference board. There will be > > > more in 3 months too. > > Server boards still hard to find. Pretty much nothing has good SATA support. > RPi 3 doesn't have the firmware currently to play aarch64 so is being used > as a 32 bit processor. This was announced today: Lemaker Cello, which is a dev board with proper ethernet and sata and 8GB RAM in an sodimm http://www.lenovator.com/product/103.html Much more suitable as a buildd than a PI with USB ethernet and 1GB RAM. The SOC is already upstreamed and firmware UEFI so it should be painless to use. I'm assured that hardware will actually be shipping imminently. > > I've definitely been thinking about some of these new arm64 capable > > boards. The Odroid-C2, Pine64 and LeMaker HiKey have 2GB RAM options, at > > least. I do worry a bit about sufficient mainline support, as a few of > > the boards I've tried (odroid-c1+, cubieboard4) didnt really work out > > with vendor kernels and the mainline support wasn't close enough to be > > useable. Right, supporting those that get their upstreaming right (AMD in this case) is a good thing. > > Also of note, the arm64 boards *could* be used to test arm64, armhf or > > armel. In principle yes, but in practice armel on arm64 is problematic as it uses some instructions removed in v8. You need a new-enough kernel to have the necessary trapping/emulation to avoid some things just aborting. Wookey -- Principal hats: Linaro, Debian, Wookware, ARM http://wookware.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature