Add RK3399 ROCK Pi 4A+/4B+ to building script

[dolphs]

Hello gents,

 

I have been out of the loop for quite some time...

Therefore did not update my armbian dev env either for quite a while, was a bit "surprised" after a " git pull " most boards went to CSC, but read the story why...

 

Anyway I was wondering rgd the "new" OP1 Rockpi4+ boards, if same image can be used for these boards ?

Most likely a new entry to compile, armbian building script,  will appear sooner or later. Also noticed current kernel 5.16 holds commits for 4A+ and 4B+ :

 

Rockchip
...
Add RK3399 ROCK Pi 4A+ board commit
Add RK3399 ROCK Pi 4B+ board commit
...

 

 

In +/- two months like to start a PoE ROCK Pi 4A+ board project , checking current status I most likely should start building for "rockpi-4a" and change kernel config a bit.

Hopefully by then a "Bleeding edge" ( 5.16 kernel ) can be compiled for these boards ... 

 

Currently compilation.log shows ( see below ) and suspecting these patches :

Displaying message: * [\e[32ml\e[0m][\e[32mc\e[0m] board-rockpi4-0005-arm64-dts-enable-es8316-audio.patch  info
Displaying message: * [\e[32ml\e[0m][\e[32mc\e[0m] general-fix-es8316-kernel-panic.patch  info

Spoiler

dolphs@develop:~/armbian/output/debug$ more compilation.log

        == u-boot make rock-pi-4-rk3399_defconfig ==

        == u-boot make BL31=/home/dolphs/armbian/cache/sources/rkbin-tools/rk33/rk3399_bl31_v1.35.elf tpl/u-boot-tpl.bin spl/u-boot-spl.bin u-boot.itb u-boot-dtb.bin ==

.config:2044:warning: override: reassigning to symbol BOOTDELAY
arch/arm/mach-rockchip/rk3399/rk3399.c: In function ‘board_debug_uart_init’:
arch/arm/mach-rockchip/rk3399/rk3399.c:126:36: warning: unused variable ‘gpio’ [-Wunused-variable]
  126 |  struct rockchip_gpio_regs * const gpio = (void *)GPIO0_BASE;
      |                                    ^~~~
arch/arm/mach-rockchip/rk3399/rk3399.c: In function ‘board_debug_uart_init’:
arch/arm/mach-rockchip/rk3399/rk3399.c:126:36: warning: unused variable ‘gpio’ [-Wunused-variable]
  126 |  struct rockchip_gpio_regs * const gpio = (void *)GPIO0_BASE;
      |                                    ^~~~
arch/arm/mach-rockchip/rk3399/rk3399.c: In function ‘board_debug_uart_init’:
arch/arm/mach-rockchip/rk3399/rk3399.c:126:36: warning: unused variable ‘gpio’ [-Wunused-variable]
  126 |  struct rockchip_gpio_regs * const gpio = (void *)GPIO0_BASE;
      |                                    ^~~~

        == kernel ==

arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/overlay/rockchip-spi-spidev.dts:22.11-27.6: Warning (spi_bus_reg): /fragment@1/__overlay__/spidev: SPI bus unit address format error, expected "0"
arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/overlay/rockchip-spi-spidev.dts:36.11-41.6: Warning (spi_bus_reg): /fragment@2/__overlay__/spidev: SPI bus unit address format error, expected "0"
arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/overlay/rockchip-spi-spidev.dts:50.11-55.6: Warning (spi_bus_reg): /fragment@3/__overlay__/spidev: SPI bus unit address format error, expected "0"
arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/overlay/rockchip-spi-spidev.dts:64.11-69.6: Warning (spi_bus_reg): /fragment@4/__overlay__/spidev: SPI bus unit address format error, expected "0"
arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-rock-pi-4.dtsi:501.19-515.4: ERROR (duplicate_label): /i2c@ff130000/codec@11: Duplicate label 'es8316' on /i2c@ff130000/codec@11 and /i2c@ff110000/codec@11
arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-rock-pi-4.dtsi:511.26-513.6: ERROR (duplicate_label): /i2c@ff130000/codec@11/port/endpoint: Duplicate label 'es8316_p0_0' on /i2c@ff130000/codec@11/port/endpoint and
 /i2c@ff110000/codec@11/port/endpoint
arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-rock-pi-4.dtsi:545.16-551.4: ERROR (duplicate_label): /i2s@ff890000/port: Duplicate label 'i2s0_p0' on /i2s@ff890000/port and /i2s@ff880000/port
arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-rock-pi-4.dtsi:546.23-550.5: ERROR (duplicate_label): /i2s@ff890000/port/endpoint: Duplicate label 'i2s0_p0_0' on /i2s@ff890000/port/endpoint and /i2s@ff880000/port/
endpoint
ERROR: Input tree has errors, aborting (use -f to force output)
make[2]: *** [scripts/Makefile.lib:352: arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-rock-pi-4.dtb] Error 2
make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
make[1]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:549: arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip] Error 2
make[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
make: *** [Makefile:1385: dtbs] Error 2
make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
 

 

 

 

Grtz! 

[Igor]

On 1/16/2022 at 3:30 AM, dolphs said:

Anyway I was wondering rgd the "new" OP1 Rockpi4+ boards, if same image can be used for these boards ?

 

On 1/16/2022 at 3:30 AM, dolphs said:

read the story why...

Radxa is one of those that are shipping new models faster than are possible to adjust their own docs  and are ofc not possible to support. Also there is a common problem of component shortage, which means there are more revisions out there due to different phy chips. Which adds to the bill we are paying for you and them. How stupid?

 

Current budget for supporting this board for 2022 is zero (0). Nobody offer to cover expenses, so we need (would need) to raise some cash but before that we need to boost marketing team. For work which we all have enough ... In case someone has a better idea, anyone contribution https://docs.armbian.com/Process_Contribute/ is possible. But sadly not very welcome if it comes without covering maintaining and infra expenses. Not to bring up user support (cheap vendor support = more expenses for us) which have no idea what they are asking for ...

 

On 1/16/2022 at 3:30 AM, dolphs said:

Most likely a new entry to compile, armbian building script,  will appear sooner or later.

Not sure. For just mentioning reasons. We are totally low on resources (since ever), we can't hire since (but we would need several full timers), while users expect top notch professional grade support services. It's just crazy 

 

There is Rockpi 3 / Quartz in upcoming (zero budget for any support) and everyone would already want to have Rockpi 5 (zero budget for support). Nobody is ofc interested to cover support expenses, while we - with no income for its users and no support from vendor, can't cover for you, vendor. And competition.

 

I see very little option to move to newer Rockchips (*) and also stay on older ones.