On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 at 05:15, Daniel Pocock <dan...@pocock.pro> wrote:
> > > On 13/02/2021 09:11, Tomasz Torcz wrote: > > Dnia Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 10:16:26PM +0100, Daniel Pocock napisał(a): > >> > >> > >> On 12/02/2021 21:19, Justin Forbes wrote: > >>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 10:21 AM Ben Cotton <bcot...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Power4kPageSize > >>>> > >>>> == Summary == > >>>> > >>>> On ppc64le, the kernel is currently compiled for 64k page size. > >>>> > >>>> This change proposes using the more common 4k page size. > >>>> > >>>> Some things, like the AMD Radeon GPU drivers, firmware or related > >>>> code, appear to be completely non-functional on the 64k page size. > >>>> Insufficient upstream developers are testing such issues on this > >>>> architecture. > >>> > >>> Just as there are many things that expect the 64K page size. I am not > >>> doing this. > >>> > >>> Justin > >> > >> Can you please identify some of the things that expect 64k? > >> > >> If the GPU drivers don't work that makes it a complete non-starter for > >> many workstation users, or they have to compile their own kernels or > >> obtain custom kernels from another user. > > > > Or just fix the GPU drivers. They're open source, after all. > > The GPUs also have firmware blobs > > OK I think we need to back up a whole bunch here and talk directly about what is wanted and going on. I am going to try an outline what I have picked up from months of this back and forth: 1. There is some sort of PowerPC workstation which is going 'to market' somewhere soon. 2. It will have high powered video cards of a PC style so will be using the same 'firmware' that would be in x86_64. 3. Those drivers expect x86_64 4k buffer sizes. 4. Daniel would like to have Fedora Linux as an option or the operating system on it. 5. They have been trying to work out through various tickets how to make this happen. Please correct the items above if needed. The questions that I don't see having been asked is: 1. Is Fedora interested in being offered on this hardware? 2. If it is, what changes is it willing to make it happen. 3. Are there other people interested in helping make this happen outside of Daniel If those have been asked and answered, I apologize for not finding things. However this seems to be having someone throw 'softballs' at an iceberg in motion with the hopes that it will change course. It would be better if we answered somewhere on those 3 questions: 'Yes, and here is someone who can help you' or 'No we aren't interested in this' 'Yes but we need to work out ways to deal with our expected delvirables and here are the people who can help out' or 'No we can not make these changes because it affects our expected deliverables' 'Yes we are all buying these XYZ systems' or 'No most of us want this to work on our IBM Power 9 boxes with some other workload'. -- Stephen J Smoogen.
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
