> > There's a lot of other problems with the EDK2 support, it's fine for > > some usecases and not for others. > > > > Given that we have to support U-Boot on all the 100s of other devices > > we support U-Boot has always made sense because EDK2 support is a lot > > more varied and it ends up being a game of whack-a-mole in > > forks/branches so in general it's an order of magnitude less work to > > support U-Boot even though it's not perfect, but then nor is EDK2. > > I hope I'm not hijacking this thread with my question: > > There are cases where Fedora/uboot does not work, but Fedora/EDK2 does. This > is probably the case, for example, for the newer RockChip devices based on > rk35xx.
I have not seen any bug reports about U-Boot, what are the issues? > In any case, I flashed EDK2 onto my Radxa Pi5 model b and was then able to > boot both the (unmodified) raw image and the DVD iso and install with > Anaconda. And EDK2 supports a large number of this new generation from a > variety of manufacturers, including pine64 and LibreComputer. If Fedora could > be used on all of these at once, that would be excellent. What hardware is supported, is all the display working? The problem is that the EDK2 builds tend to be forks that are done once and not maintained, not upstreamed, so there's not CVEs, no changes when upstream kernel changes and may support a limited set of hardware. So they work fine for a snapshot in time but possibly may cause issues as other things evolve. > Could we “officially” add devices that are equipped with EDK2 and work to the > list of supported devices? If you want to do the builds, deal with all the support issues with early boot problems, CVEs etc and the EDK2 builds are fully open source without random binary blobs, sure anyone is free to enable it. Once it's in Fedora we can then review what official looks like. I personally don't have the time nor interest to deal with EDK2. > This would be a huge step forward, especially for Fedora Server (which is my > area of expertise in Fedora). After some initial testing in real-world > operation, my Rock Pi5 can definitely compete with an Intel N100 device and > is significantly better in terms of power consumption. Why would it be a huge step forward, please outline the pros/cons of EDK2 vs U-Boot. > Unfortunately, I have not been able to test any of the other Rockchip models > yet. And RockChip is particularly suitable for Fedora Server because it > offers a range of models that are well suited for servers (we have not yet > found anything from other chip/board manufacturers) - if they would be > supported by Fedora. It's also suitable for workstation, because of the decent GPU, amount of memory etc, and for Edge because of the range of peripherals like CAN, NPUs etc, but if you're going to support EDK2 and make it official on these devices you can't exclude editions. Peter I have removed the rest because that was definitely high jacking the thread -- _______________________________________________ arm mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
