Mark Millard
2016-Sep-24 02:01 UTC
11.0-RELEASE tier level for arm64/aaarch64 and the officially built arm/armv6 variants?
From https://www.freebsd.org/platforms/arm.html :> 32-bit ARM is officially a Tier 2 architecture, as the FreeBSD project does not provide official releases or pre-built packages for this platform due to it primarily targeting the embedded arena. However, FreeBSD/ARM is being actively developed and maintained, is well supported, and provides an excellent framework for building ARM-based systems. FreeBSD/arm supports ARMv4 and ARMv5 processors. FreeBSD/armv6 supports ARMv6 and ARMv7 processors, including SMP on the latter."does not provide official releases or pre-built packages"?> # uname -apKU > FreeBSD rpi2 11.0-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 11.0-PRERELEASE #5 r304943M: Sun Aug 28 03:17:54 PDT 2016 markmi at FreeBSDx64:/usr/obj/clang/arm.armv6/usr/src/sys/RPI2-NODBG arm armv6 1100502 1100502> # pkg search '.*' | wc > 21349 155540 1596736Will 11.0-RELEASE change the tier level for any of the specific arm-armv6 variants that have FreeBSD-11.0-*-arm-armv6-*.img* files built, such as for RPI2? Even if all the officially built arm-armv6 variants stay tier 2, the wording on the web page likely needs to be changed because so much is built and available that the above quote claims is not available. Also from https://www.freebsd.org/platforms/arm.html :> Initial support for 64-bit ARM is complete. 64-bit ARM platforms follow a set of standard conventions, and a single FreeBSD build will work on hardware from multiple vendors. As a result, FreeBSD will provide official releases for FreeBSD/arm64 and packages will be available. FreeBSD/arm64 is on the path to becoming a Tier 1 architecture.Will 11.0-RELEASE make arm64/aarch64 Tier 1? [I will note that, while there are no official builds for the Pine64 family (A64 based) that are under the Allwinner arm activity, the SOC's involved are Cortex-A53 64-bit arm based. They likely do not fit in the "standard conventions" or arm64/aarch64 would be where they would have been supported. Some rewording might be appropriate for the above quote as well.] ==Mark Millard markmi at dsl-only.net
Mark Millard
2016-Sep-24 02:29 UTC
Fwd: 11.0-RELEASE tier level for arm64/aaarch64 and the officially built arm/armv6 variants?
[A resend since I forget to list free-arm in the To: the first time.] From https://www.freebsd.org/platforms/arm.html :> 32-bit ARM is officially a Tier 2 architecture, as the FreeBSD project does not provide official releases or pre-built packages for this platform due to it primarily targeting the embedded arena. However, FreeBSD/ARM is being actively developed and maintained, is well supported, and provides an excellent framework for building ARM-based systems. FreeBSD/arm supports ARMv4 and ARMv5 processors. FreeBSD/armv6 supports ARMv6 and ARMv7 processors, including SMP on the latter."does not provide official releases or pre-built packages"?> # uname -apKU > FreeBSD rpi2 11.0-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 11.0-PRERELEASE #5 r304943M: Sun Aug 28 03:17:54 PDT 2016 markmi at FreeBSDx64:/usr/obj/clang/arm.armv6/usr/src/sys/RPI2-NODBG arm armv6 1100502 1100502> # pkg search '.*' | wc > 21349 155540 1596736Will 11.0-RELEASE change the tier level for any of the specific arm-armv6 variants that have FreeBSD-11.0-*-arm-armv6-*.img* files built, such as for RPI2? Even if all the officially built arm-armv6 variants stay tier 2, the wording on the web page likely needs to be changed because so much is built and available that the above quote claims is not available. Also from https://www.freebsd.org/platforms/arm.html :> Initial support for 64-bit ARM is complete. 64-bit ARM platforms follow a set of standard conventions, and a single FreeBSD build will work on hardware from multiple vendors. As a result, FreeBSD will provide official releases for FreeBSD/arm64 and packages will be available. FreeBSD/arm64 is on the path to becoming a Tier 1 architecture.Will 11.0-RELEASE make arm64/aarch64 Tier 1? [I will note that, while there are no official builds for the Pine64 family (A64 based) that are under the Allwinner arm activity, the SOC's involved are Cortex-A53 64-bit arm based. They likely do not fit in the "standard conventions" or arm64/aarch64 would be where they would have been supported. Some rewording might be appropriate for the above quote as well.] ==Mark Millard markmi at dsl-only.net