(Please always keep the submitted in the loop.) Diederik de Haas <didi.deb...@cknow.org> (2022-02-15): > On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 05:11:36 +0200 Cyril Brulebois <cy...@debamax.com> wrote: > > Package: raspi-firmware > > > > Looking at #980536, and if I'm reading between the lines correctly, the > > whole Pi 4 family should have no cma= setting, and we should be skipping > > it on the Compute Module 4 the same way we do on the Pi 4. > > ... > > This would avoid re-adding cma=$CMA (with CMA defaulting to 64M) on the > > CM4, which the image-specs build disabled initially, when producing the > > image with `make raspi_4_bullseye.img`. > > I created https://salsa.debian.org/debian/raspi-firmware/-/merge_requests/28 > to > have a general capability to not set CMA (f.e. for headless systems)
By the way, I still have a branch somewhere with relevant commits for the Pi 4: https://salsa.debian.org/debian/raspi-firmware/-/commit/e8b64797f3852e5a133d839407e36f6e9c839399 https://salsa.debian.org/debian/raspi-firmware/-/commit/2db10902f73ca38fff08b9abb0236ac8e592a2d4 and cosmetics: https://salsa.debian.org/debian/raspi-firmware/-/commit/0f8b943759ed79eff2c8a0e262f92f11c1ac24b2 Slight digression: Those are part of a branch adding/fixing support for compute modules… since the initial push, it seems the device-specific sections in the config file (to set the right device_tree parameter) might no longer be needed for newer releases (but I haven't checked yet). In any cases, I'm not sure what to do for bullseye though, as I don't think it's possible to get targeted fixes there… TL;DR: I should extract those commits and propose them for master. That's what I've been using successfully on top of an older release, and that seems to be quite reliable. Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois -- Debian Consultant @ DEBAMAX -- https://debamax.com/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature