[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Support for Orange Pi 4 LTS



On 2023-02-10, Diederik de Haas wrote:

Nice summary!

> On Friday, 10 February 2023 16:57:07 CET Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 09:06:10AM +0100, Christian Marillat wrote:
>> > Is Orange Pi 4 LTS (arm64) supported in Debian.
...
>> OrangePi themselves have a version of Debian Bullseye server and Debian
>> Bullseye xfce desktop available.
>
> If you have a working bootloader which (successfully) starts 'some' kernel and 
> combine that with a userland created by f.e. debootstrap and you have a 
> working Debian-like system.
>
> The problem with most BSPs is this: The device/chipset vendor proved with it 
> that the device/SBC works and can run Linux. And then they throw it over the 
> wall and 'say' "have fun with it" (our job is done).
>
> I'm going to assume that "supported *in* Debian" (emphasis mine) means whether 
> it's supported by all-and-only Debian packages.
>
> For that you need 2 things:
> 1) device/SBC is supported by *upstream* u-boot

If it lacks u-boot but has a workable UEFI implementation, you do not
generally need u-boot.


> 2) device/SBC is supported by the *upstream* kernel
>
> And that is where most SBCs are lacking, unless the SBC manufacturor or (more 
> commonly) the community around it, works to upstream all the needed bits.

> So it all comes down to upstreaming all the needed parts.
>
> Wrt kernel support: if there is a .dts file for your board in Linus' tree, 
> that's usually a *very* encouraging sign. That doesn't automatically mean 
> everything is fully supported, but at least some attempt to get it merged 
> upstream has been successful.
> *If* that's the case, then you need to figure out which kernel modules are 
> needed for your device and whether they are enabled in Debian's kernel.
> Debian's kernel config is distinct from what is enabled in some (upstream's) 
> *defconfig* file.
> So you'd need to build a kernel to verify that it works with those 
> (additional) kernel modules and if that's the case you can either file a bug 
> against the kernel requesting those module to get enabled and/or you can 
> submit a MR to the kernel-team's salsa repo.

... and ideally also track down which kernel .udeb packages to add those
modules to as well, so that it can be supported in
debian-installer... and if all goes well, adding bootable images for
debian-installer.


live well,
  vagrant

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: