0
martinayotte

Switching SUNXI-DEV to 5.2.y

Recommended Posts

Since the two last days, I'm working on switching SUNXI-DEV to 5.2.y ...

I'm almost done, tested few of my boards, I will do more boards and probably commit my work tomorrow !

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Igor , I've faced again the u-boot issue about fdtfile discrepancy : /boot/dtb/sun50i-h3-orangepi-zero-plus2.dtb vs /boot/dtb/sun50i-h3-orangepi-zeroplus2.dtb

Since no one complained about U-Boot upgrade compatibility, I think we should forget the "upgradable history" and get finally for formal mainline filenaming ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had that as a user, very frustrating.

 

How can we make users aware?

Also advise about this heavy change (because breaking the upgrade path)  on the download site.

What else can be done, ideas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, martinayotte said:

get finally for formal mainline filenaming ...


But kernel upgrade on this board will result in "fdt_file not found" if we don't correct this, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Igor said:

But kernel upgrade on this board will result in "fdt_file not found" if we don't correct this, right?

This is what is already happening even with new image...

Since we never got "end user complains on upgrades" (probably because there is no much end users for that board), I would rather forget about "upgrades" and make sure new images are working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, martinayotte said:

I would rather forget about "upgrades" and make sure new images are working.

It is development, so no worries here.

If the dev branch reaches next at any near or far future time upgrades should (must?) work properly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, martinayotte said:

Since we never got "end user complains on upgrades" (probably because there is no much end users for that board),

well, upgrade of Kernel is no longer automatic, so user may not even know that ?   ==  no breaking boards?

 

3 hours ago, Werner said:

If the dev branch reaches next at any near or far future time upgrades should (must?) work properly.  

fine, however, any idea how to fix that when it reaches next ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Tido said:

fine, however, any idea how to fix that when it reaches next ?

Maybe with some kind of hack by having DTB copied under both /boot/dtb/sun50i-h3-orangepi-zero-plus2.dtb and /boot/dtb/sun50i-h3-orangepi-zeroplus2.dtb names...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Commits for the switching to 5.2.y is now done !

(Hoping I didn't forget too much ... Still few patches to fix, such as startup logo, but it is not an hurry ...)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm probably missing something, but why are lima patches still there? They should not be needed with 5.2 anymore and they even shouldn't apply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jernej said:

why are lima patches still there?

Hi @jernej , I'm not an expert on lima at all, so there are about 35 patches there, they were still applied successfully except one or two.

Maybe you or other can provide help to determine which ones we still want to keep ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really know which lima patches are strictly needed, but most of them should be in 5.2 (I''m no lima expert either).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Lima is coming with 5.2.y (is it?) then all those should go out. If they apply correctly its possible that location has been changed. I also don't know without research. In any case this functionality was at the "yes it works, but not usable" level. I doubt that changed in last few months. An alternative closed source variant is worked on. IMO, move those patches away for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lima userspace driver is merged to mesa 19.1, and latest develop lima is based on 18.3.0. and the good news is mesa used in debian 10 is 18.3.6. so its very easy to rebuild mesa debs for debian 10.

 

I have done ARM64 debs build, and ARM debs is on going.

 

https://github.com/zhangn1985/lima_gpu_drv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Igor said:

In any case this functionality was at the "yes it works, but not usable" level. I doubt that changed in last few months.

Well, driver is what it is. More important bit is mesa and there was significant advancement. But you have to use mesa master, 19.1 is not so good.

 

7 hours ago, ning said:

latest develop lima is based on 18.3.0

What do you mean by that? Development is done in mesa master branch now, everything else is deprecated, including lima fork, where initial development was done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so you are an expert on Mesa to back port Lima from 19.1 to 18.3.6?

why not directly use develop branch? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ning said:

so you are an expert on Mesa to back port Lima from 19.1 to 18.3.6?

No, I'm not. I'm just following Lima PRs in Mesa repo.

 

13 minutes ago, ning said:

why not directly use develop branch?

Because it's missing a lot of fixes and improvements? Why not use mesa master directly? I see backporting as a waste of time (Arch user here :)).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

because Debian 10 is using 18.3.6 not master.  if using master branch, there may be a lot of compact issue. 

 

there maybe some additional fixes in master branch, but we don't know whether the fixes are for master or common fixes. 

 

you are Arch Linux user, maybe master branch is better for you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an OrangePi One running user-built image with 5.2.1 kernel before the mentioned change above and is booting flawless. An OrangePi One Plus also booting Linux 5.2.0 without a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Werner said:

I have an OrangePi One running user-built image with 5.2.1 kernel before the mentioned change above and is booting flawless. An OrangePi One Plus also booting Linux 5.2.0 without a problem.



OpiOne uses different kernel config tha sunxi64

 

OpiOnePlus uses different patch dir than sunxi64

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
0