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

Re: Testing versatile kernel on Raspberry Pi?



On Mon, 2016-01-25 at 15:46 +0100, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> Thanks for your response :-)
> 
> On Monday 25 January 2016 13:23:20 Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > I have a Raspberry Pi 1B, 1B+ and 2B and I'd love to test Debian's 4.4
> > > kernel  for it. At least it is/was my understanding that the versatile
> > > kernel is meant for the Raspberry Pi.
> > 
> > The versatile kernel is meant for ARM "veratile" development boards, and it
> > also happens to be a reasonable platform emulated by QEMU.
> > 
> > It's not "versatile" in the sense of "adaptable".
> 
> I know. A slightly adapted version of the versatile kernel is used to do Pi 
> simulation in QEMU and I've (also) created a repo for it: 
> https://github.com/diederikdehaas/raspbian-kernel (default branch is 
> kernel-3.18.x-qemu).
> 
> If you look at the changelog on linux (4.4~rc8-1~exp1) [1] you see the 
> Raspberry Pi 2 explicitly mentioned and also references to BCM2836 (=Pi 2), 
> BCM2835 (=Pi 1) and vc4 which stands for VideoCore4 which is the graphics chip 
> for both the Pi 1 and 2.
> Further reports on /. and phoronix [2] suggested that (full?) support for the 
> Pi 1 and 2 was added to the upstream kernel and the changelog hinted at that 
> as well. (A more recent report on /. [3] indicates that kernel 4.5 is more 
> likely and it could be that it is primarily for the Pi 2.)
[...]

The armmp kernel flavour should now support the BCM2836 and the Pi 2,
but *not* the BCM2835.  Also, Debian's armhf port is built for ARMv7
whereas the BCM2835 implements ARMv6.  Most of the peripherals are the
same between these two chips, so the driver names include 'bcm2835'.

I haven't yet had confirmation that it actually does work.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Klipstein's 4th Law of Prototyping and Production:
                                    A fail-safe circuit will destroy others.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: