Bug#911133: Graphical installer
W dniu 19.10.2018 o 01:03, Ben Hutchings pisze:
> On Thu, 2018-10-18 at 19:48 +0200, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
>> What we probably need is expanding fb-modules udeb for arm64 with
>> several entries:
>> - radeonfb
> We don't build radeonfb for arm64, since it only supports old Radeon
> chips (up to about 2004).
> For current AMD chips the only native driver is amdgpu; for older chips
> it's radeon. Both of them will need some firmware just to light up the
OK. Last time I used Radeon cards few years ago - before amdgpu driver.
HD5450 worked fine in arm64 machine without being initialized by
mainboard firmware - Linux was able to get it running with loading it's
firmware from hard drive.
But yeah - non-free part. Which (according to ) can be put on install
media by user.
>> - nouveau
> This also needs firmware to drive recent chips. It's possible the
> driver can set up the display controller without it though.
>> - virtio-gpu (for VM guest instances)
>> This should cover real hardware machines with either AMD Radeon or
>> NVidia graphic cards and also virtual machines.
>> UEFI does not even need to have X86EmulatorPkg to get it working. For
>> Radeon cards (not checked with NVidia) kernel can initialize them
>> perfectly fine without Option ROM support.
>> And for VMs it just works with recent EDK2 used.
> I really don't think it makes sense to try to support this case. It
> seems to be that the proportion of ARM64 systems booting with UEFI
> *and* using a plug-in graphics card *and* using that card for display
> (rather than off-screen rendering or GPGPU) is likely to be vanishingly
Now I know why there is nearly no desktop-class hardware for arm64 - no
one believes that it will have any use. When all what is needed is one
change to kernel packaging.
There are people using Macchiatobin, Synquacer etc boards as their
desktops. I do not expect them to have to use serial cables just to
install operating system.