Re: [fedora-arm] beaglebone black GPIO questions
op 22-01-15 18:01, Peter Robinson schreef: On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Bram Van Steenlandt b...@diomedia.be wrote: Hi, I installed fedora 21 on a beaglebone black, I was amazed how easy this was and how well most things work. Good news. I can't seem to get GPIO working, first dtc needed a patch for the -@ option, after I finally seem to got that working I now find I have no /sys/devices/bone_capemgr* directory. The capemgr bits are a custom kernel from BBone that never made it upstream. The ability to do DeviceTree overlays only landed mainline in 3.19 so you would need at 3.19rc5 [1] or later Fedora kernel. I've got as far as testing that the kernel boots on the BBB with the kernel with overlays enabled but not had enough time to test them. Ok, then I would like to avoid them, I'm hoping to also run freebsd in the future and I don't think they they will have the device tree overlay stuff. Can anyone here confirm the status of GPIO (and other cape features) ? does it require a custom kernel ? Am I missing someting ? GPIO works, it doesn't need capes to do that. Basically overlays are just a means of automating the configuration of all features on a particular addon card whether you call it a cape, a hat or an expansion board. Depending on what device you're trying to configure you might just be able to do it with a basic script. output works by doing: echo 48 /sys/class/gpio/export echo out /sys/class/gpio/gpio48/direction echo 1 /sys/class/gpio/gpio48/value however, for the input I need to enable the pull up resistor ( I think). cat /sys/kernel/debug/pinctrl/44e10800.pinmux/pins | grep pin 46 pin 46 (44e108b8.0) 0008 pinctrl-single I need to change this (0008) but can't seem to figure out how. The board I'm trying to use has a dts file saying: 0x030 0x37 /* INPUT MODE7 pullup */ Is there an equivalent to achieve this without a dts file ? All information I found seems to point either to the device tree overlay stuff or /sys/kernel/debug/omap_mux/gmpc* all I have here is a subdirectory board which is empty. Thx Peter [1] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=604938 ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] beaglebone black GPIO questions
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Bram Van Steenlandt b...@diomedia.be wrote: Hi, I installed fedora 21 on a beaglebone black, I was amazed how easy this was and how well most things work. Good news. I can't seem to get GPIO working, first dtc needed a patch for the -@ option, after I finally seem to got that working I now find I have no /sys/devices/bone_capemgr* directory. The capemgr bits are a custom kernel from BBone that never made it upstream. The ability to do DeviceTree overlays only landed mainline in 3.19 so you would need at 3.19rc5 [1] or later Fedora kernel. I've got as far as testing that the kernel boots on the BBB with the kernel with overlays enabled but not had enough time to test them. Can anyone here confirm the status of GPIO (and other cape features) ? does it require a custom kernel ? Am I missing someting ? GPIO works, it doesn't need capes to do that. Basically overlays are just a means of automating the configuration of all features on a particular addon card whether you call it a cape, a hat or an expansion board. Depending on what device you're trying to configure you might just be able to do it with a basic script. Peter [1] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=604938 ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] beaglebone power down control?
On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 10:52 PM, Robert Moskowitz r...@htt-consult.com wrote: On 12/06/2014 11:44 PM, Adam Goode wrote: Yes, the cubieboards are completely different. I guess what I am looking for is the equivalent for AM335x of this: http://linux-sunxi.org/Linux_mainlining_effort Maybe I will ask on the beagleboard list. You could git the current uboot and test with that rather than the 10-4 GA uboot in F21. beaglebone =/= cubieboard.. u-boot's not going to fix this at all, it's a kernel issue that'll be fixed in v3.19-rc0.. Regards, -- Robert Nelson http://www.rcn-ee.com/ ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] beaglebone power down control?
On 12/07/2014 07:17 PM, Robert Nelson wrote: On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 10:52 PM, Robert Moskowitz r...@htt-consult.com wrote: On 12/06/2014 11:44 PM, Adam Goode wrote: Yes, the cubieboards are completely different. I guess what I am looking for is the equivalent for AM335x of this: http://linux-sunxi.org/Linux_mainlining_effort Maybe I will ask on the beagleboard list. You could git the current uboot and test with that rather than the 10-4 GA uboot in F21. beaglebone =/= cubieboard.. Never meant to imply that they are == Rather that I was not having this problem. u-boot's not going to fix this at all, it's a kernel issue that'll be fixed in v3.19-rc0.. Well good to know that something else is going to push us toward getting the 3.19 kernel! ;) ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] beaglebone power down control?
Well good to know that something else is going to push us toward getting the 3.19 kernel! ;) Or just locally backport 22 patches when rc1 hits. Regards, -- Robert Nelson http://www.rcn-ee.com/ ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] beaglebone power down control?
On 12/07/2014 07:28 PM, Robert Nelson wrote: Well good to know that something else is going to push us toward getting the 3.19 kernel! ;) Or just locally backport 22 patches when rc1 hits. I need whatever patches are needed for the Cubieboard 'fixes', like for hdmi support... ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] beaglebone power down control?
Well good to know that something else is going to push us toward getting the 3.19 kernel! ;) Or just locally backport 22 patches when rc1 hits. I need whatever patches are needed for the Cubieboard 'fixes', like for hdmi support... Robert, this is completely off topic for this thread. The Cubieboard is completely unrelated to the BeagleBone in terms of hardware or kernel support. Please do no hijack the thread. Peter ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] beaglebone power down control?
On 12/07/2014 07:42 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: Well good to know that something else is going to push us toward getting the 3.19 kernel! ;) Or just locally backport 22 patches when rc1 hits. I need whatever patches are needed for the Cubieboard 'fixes', like for hdmi support... Robert, this is completely off topic for this thread. The Cubieboard is completely unrelated to the BeagleBone in terms of hardware or kernel support. Please do no hijack the thread. OK. ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] beaglebone power down control?
Thanks for this info on both lists! Adam On Dec 7, 2014 7:28 PM, Robert Nelson robertcnel...@gmail.com wrote: Well good to know that something else is going to push us toward getting the 3.19 kernel! ;) Or just locally backport 22 patches when rc1 hits. Regards, -- Robert Nelson http://www.rcn-ee.com/ ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] beaglebone power down control?
On 12/06/2014 10:59 PM, Adam Goode wrote: Hi, I've noticed that the beaglebone doesn't power off at shutdown with Fedora 21. Does anyone happen to know if support for this is in a mainline kernel (so coming soon)? Or is this a bug and not expected? My Cubieboards power off at shutdown. If not I guess I might have to try to make a mini-remix myself. ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] beaglebone power down control?
Yes, the cubieboards are completely different. I guess what I am looking for is the equivalent for AM335x of this: http://linux-sunxi.org/Linux_mainlining_effort Maybe I will ask on the beagleboard list. Adam On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Robert Moskowitz r...@htt-consult.com wrote: On 12/06/2014 10:59 PM, Adam Goode wrote: Hi, I've noticed that the beaglebone doesn't power off at shutdown with Fedora 21. Does anyone happen to know if support for this is in a mainline kernel (so coming soon)? Or is this a bug and not expected? My Cubieboards power off at shutdown. If not I guess I might have to try to make a mini-remix myself. ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] beaglebone power down control?
On 12/06/2014 11:44 PM, Adam Goode wrote: Yes, the cubieboards are completely different. I guess what I am looking for is the equivalent for AM335x of this: http://linux-sunxi.org/Linux_mainlining_effort Maybe I will ask on the beagleboard list. You could git the current uboot and test with that rather than the 10-4 GA uboot in F21. Adam On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Robert Moskowitz r...@htt-consult.com mailto:r...@htt-consult.com wrote: On 12/06/2014 10:59 PM, Adam Goode wrote: Hi, I've noticed that the beaglebone doesn't power off at shutdown with Fedora 21. Does anyone happen to know if support for this is in a mainline kernel (so coming soon)? Or is this a bug and not expected? My Cubieboards power off at shutdown. If not I guess I might have to try to make a mini-remix myself. ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] BeagleBone Black CPU speed
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Steve Underwood ste...@coppice.org wrote: Hi Peter, On 01/22/2014 04:14 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: It looks like the BeagleBone Black is still running at 550MHz with the latest Fedora 20. Does anyone know what is holding it back from running at 1GHz? Is the a uboot thing, or a kernel thing, or something else? I saw a version of uboot referred to as making the BBB run at 1GHz, but when I tried experimenting with that I got the same 550MHz clock speed. If you're interested could you try the kernel-3.13.0-1.1.fc20 scratch kernel [1] on your BBBlack. It should add freq scaling support and you should be able to tell if it detects it appropriately if the cpufreq-cpu0 module loads. Feedback welcome. So that kernel works with my testing but the module doesn't auto load the cpufreq-cpu0 module. If you do: modprobe cpufreq-cpu0 You then get: cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_available_frequencies 30 60 80 100 Even with 3.12.8 you can manually load that module and it works but you only get up to 720mhz. Peter [1] http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/arm-kernel/kernel-3.13.0-1.1.fc20.armv7hl.rpm Earlier Jos Vos reported the following results for his BeagleBoneBlack running pystone.py Fedora: Pystone(1.1) time for 5 passes = 10.9073 This machine benchmarks at 4584.1 pystones/second Which governor are you using? It seems to be definitely stuck at 300Mhz 3.13.0-bone4 (what i'm shipping to debian bone users..) # cpufreq-set --freq 30 # /usr/lib/python2.7/test/pystone.py Pystone(1.1) time for 5 passes = 11.37 This machine benchmarks at 4397.54 pystones/second # cpufreq-set --freq 60 # /usr/lib/python2.7/test/pystone.py Pystone(1.1) time for 5 passes = 5.67 This machine benchmarks at 8818.34 pystones/second # cpufreq-set --freq 80 # /usr/lib/python2.7/test/pystone.py Pystone(1.1) time for 5 passes = 4.28 This machine benchmarks at 11682.2 pystones/second # cpufreq-set --freq 100 # /usr/lib/python2.7/test/pystone.py Pystone(1.1) time for 5 passes = 3.35 This machine benchmarks at 14925.4 pystones/second When just leaving the ondemand govenor set: cpufrequtils 008: cpufreq-info (C) Dominik Brodowski 2004-2009 Report errors and bugs to cpuf...@vger.kernel.org, please. analyzing CPU 0: driver: generic_cpu0 CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 0 CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 0 maximum transition latency: 300 us. hardware limits: 300 MHz - 1000 MHz available frequency steps: 300 MHz, 600 MHz, 800 MHz, 1000 MHz available cpufreq governors: conservative, ondemand, userspace, powersave, performance current policy: frequency should be within 300 MHz and 1000 MHz. The governor ondemand may decide which speed to use within this range. current CPU frequency is 1000 MHz (asserted by call to hardware). cpufreq stats: 300 MHz:0.00%, 600 MHz:0.00%, 800 MHz:0.00%, 1000 MHz:100.00% # /usr/lib/python2.7/test/pystone.py Pystone(1.1) time for 5 passes = 3.39 This machine benchmarks at 14749.3 pystones/second Regards, -- Robert Nelson http://www.rcn-ee.com/ ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] BeagleBone Black CPU speed
Hi Robert, Fedora: Pystone(1.1) time for 5 passes = 10.9073 This machine benchmarks at 4584.1 pystones/second Which governor are you using? It seems to be definitely stuck at 300Mhz # cpupower frequency-info analyzing CPU 0: driver: generic_cpu0 CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 0 CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 0 maximum transition latency: 300 us. hardware limits: 300 MHz - 1000 MHz available frequency steps: 300 MHz, 600 MHz, 800 MHz, 1000 MHz available cpufreq governors: conservative, userspace, powersave, ondemand, performance current policy: frequency should be within 300 MHz and 1000 MHz. The governor ondemand may decide which speed to use within this range. current CPU frequency is 300 MHz (asserted by call to hardware). 3.13.0-bone4 (what i'm shipping to debian bone users..) kernel-3.13.0-1.1.fc20.armv7hl [root@bblack ~]# cpupower frequency-info analyzing CPU 0: driver: generic_cpu0 CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 0 CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 0 maximum transition latency: 300 us. hardware limits: 300 MHz - 1000 MHz available frequency steps: 300 MHz, 600 MHz, 800 MHz, 1000 MHz available cpufreq governors: conservative, userspace, powersave, ondemand, performance current policy: frequency should be within 300 MHz and 1000 MHz. The governor ondemand may decide which speed to use within this range. current CPU frequency is 300 MHz (asserted by call to hardware). [root@bblack ~]# /usr/lib/python2.7/test/pystone.py Pystone(1.1) time for 5 passes = 6.20305 This machine benchmarks at 8060.55 pystones/second [root@bblack ~]# cpupower frequency-set -f 60 Setting cpu: 0 [root@bblack ~]# /usr/lib/python2.7/test/pystone.py Pystone(1.1) time for 5 passes = 10.6237 This machine benchmarks at 4706.45 pystones/second [root@bblack ~]# cpupower frequency-set -f 80 Setting cpu: 0 [root@bblack ~]# /usr/lib/python2.7/test/pystone.py Pystone(1.1) time for 5 passes = 7.76076 This machine benchmarks at 6442.67 pystones/second [root@bblack ~]# cpupower frequency-set -f 100 Setting cpu: 0 [root@bblack ~]# /usr/lib/python2.7/test/pystone.py Pystone(1.1) time for 5 passes = 6.16087 This machine benchmarks at 8115.74 pystones/second [root@bblack ~]# cpupower frequency-info analyzing CPU 0: driver: generic_cpu0 CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 0 CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 0 maximum transition latency: 300 us. hardware limits: 300 MHz - 1000 MHz available frequency steps: 300 MHz, 600 MHz, 800 MHz, 1000 MHz available cpufreq governors: conservative, userspace, powersave, ondemand, performance current policy: frequency should be within 300 MHz and 1000 MHz. The governor userspace may decide which speed to use within this range. current CPU frequency is 1000 MHz (asserted by call to hardware). So it appears to work but the results are some what variable. Also I presume you've got the cpufreq driver built in rather than a module as it doesn't auto load. Peter ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] BeagleBone Black CPU speed
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Robert, Fedora: Pystone(1.1) time for 5 passes = 10.9073 This machine benchmarks at 4584.1 pystones/second Which governor are you using? It seems to be definitely stuck at 300Mhz # cpupower frequency-info analyzing CPU 0: driver: generic_cpu0 CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 0 CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 0 maximum transition latency: 300 us. hardware limits: 300 MHz - 1000 MHz available frequency steps: 300 MHz, 600 MHz, 800 MHz, 1000 MHz available cpufreq governors: conservative, userspace, powersave, ondemand, performance current policy: frequency should be within 300 MHz and 1000 MHz. The governor ondemand may decide which speed to use within this range. current CPU frequency is 300 MHz (asserted by call to hardware). 3.13.0-bone4 (what i'm shipping to debian bone users..) kernel-3.13.0-1.1.fc20.armv7hl [root@bblack ~]# cpupower frequency-info analyzing CPU 0: driver: generic_cpu0 CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 0 CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 0 maximum transition latency: 300 us. hardware limits: 300 MHz - 1000 MHz available frequency steps: 300 MHz, 600 MHz, 800 MHz, 1000 MHz available cpufreq governors: conservative, userspace, powersave, ondemand, performance current policy: frequency should be within 300 MHz and 1000 MHz. The governor ondemand may decide which speed to use within this range. current CPU frequency is 300 MHz (asserted by call to hardware). [root@bblack ~]# /usr/lib/python2.7/test/pystone.py Pystone(1.1) time for 5 passes = 6.20305 This machine benchmarks at 8060.55 pystones/second [root@bblack ~]# cpupower frequency-set -f 60 Setting cpu: 0 [root@bblack ~]# /usr/lib/python2.7/test/pystone.py Pystone(1.1) time for 5 passes = 10.6237 This machine benchmarks at 4706.45 pystones/second [root@bblack ~]# cpupower frequency-set -f 80 Setting cpu: 0 [root@bblack ~]# /usr/lib/python2.7/test/pystone.py Pystone(1.1) time for 5 passes = 7.76076 This machine benchmarks at 6442.67 pystones/second [root@bblack ~]# cpupower frequency-set -f 100 Setting cpu: 0 [root@bblack ~]# /usr/lib/python2.7/test/pystone.py Pystone(1.1) time for 5 passes = 6.16087 This machine benchmarks at 8115.74 pystones/second [root@bblack ~]# cpupower frequency-info analyzing CPU 0: driver: generic_cpu0 CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 0 CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 0 maximum transition latency: 300 us. hardware limits: 300 MHz - 1000 MHz available frequency steps: 300 MHz, 600 MHz, 800 MHz, 1000 MHz available cpufreq governors: conservative, userspace, powersave, ondemand, performance current policy: frequency should be within 300 MHz and 1000 MHz. The governor userspace may decide which speed to use within this range. current CPU frequency is 1000 MHz (asserted by call to hardware). So it appears to work but the results are some what variable. Also I presume you've got the cpufreq driver built in rather than a module as it doesn't auto load. Yeap, it's built in.. https://github.com/RobertCNelson/linux-dev/blob/am33x-v3.13/patches/defconfig#L574 Regards, -- Robert Nelson http://www.rcn-ee.com/ ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] BeagleBone Black CPU speed
Hi Robert, On 01/22/2014 10:59 PM, Robert Nelson wrote: On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Steve Underwood ste...@coppice.org wrote: Hi Peter, On 01/22/2014 04:14 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: It looks like the BeagleBone Black is still running at 550MHz with the latest Fedora 20. Does anyone know what is holding it back from running at 1GHz? Is the a uboot thing, or a kernel thing, or something else? I saw a version of uboot referred to as making the BBB run at 1GHz, but when I tried experimenting with that I got the same 550MHz clock speed. If you're interested could you try the kernel-3.13.0-1.1.fc20 scratch kernel [1] on your BBBlack. It should add freq scaling support and you should be able to tell if it detects it appropriately if the cpufreq-cpu0 module loads. Feedback welcome. So that kernel works with my testing but the module doesn't auto load the cpufreq-cpu0 module. If you do: modprobe cpufreq-cpu0 You then get: cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_available_frequencies 30 60 80 100 Even with 3.12.8 you can manually load that module and it works but you only get up to 720mhz. Peter [1] http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/arm-kernel/kernel-3.13.0-1.1.fc20.armv7hl.rpm Earlier Jos Vos reported the following results for his BeagleBoneBlack running pystone.py Fedora: Pystone(1.1) time for 5 passes = 10.9073 This machine benchmarks at 4584.1 pystones/second Which governor are you using? It seems to be definitely stuck at 300Mhz 3.13.0-bone4 (what i'm shipping to debian bone users..) # cpufreq-set --freq 30 # /usr/lib/python2.7/test/pystone.py Pystone(1.1) time for 5 passes = 11.37 This machine benchmarks at 4397.54 pystones/second # cpufreq-set --freq 60 # /usr/lib/python2.7/test/pystone.py Pystone(1.1) time for 5 passes = 5.67 This machine benchmarks at 8818.34 pystones/second # cpufreq-set --freq 80 # /usr/lib/python2.7/test/pystone.py Pystone(1.1) time for 5 passes = 4.28 This machine benchmarks at 11682.2 pystones/second # cpufreq-set --freq 100 # /usr/lib/python2.7/test/pystone.py Pystone(1.1) time for 5 passes = 3.35 This machine benchmarks at 14925.4 pystones/second When just leaving the ondemand govenor set: cpufrequtils 008: cpufreq-info (C) Dominik Brodowski 2004-2009 Report errors and bugs to cpuf...@vger.kernel.org, please. analyzing CPU 0: driver: generic_cpu0 CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 0 CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 0 maximum transition latency: 300 us. hardware limits: 300 MHz - 1000 MHz available frequency steps: 300 MHz, 600 MHz, 800 MHz, 1000 MHz available cpufreq governors: conservative, ondemand, userspace, powersave, performance current policy: frequency should be within 300 MHz and 1000 MHz. The governor ondemand may decide which speed to use within this range. current CPU frequency is 1000 MHz (asserted by call to hardware). cpufreq stats: 300 MHz:0.00%, 600 MHz:0.00%, 800 MHz:0.00%, 1000 MHz:100.00% # /usr/lib/python2.7/test/pystone.py Pystone(1.1) time for 5 passes = 3.39 This machine benchmarks at 14749.3 pystones/second Regards, On my BeagleBoneBlack running Peter's new Linux 3.13.0 RPM I get: [root@beagle]# cpupower frequency-info analyzing CPU 0: driver: generic_cpu0 CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 0 CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 0 maximum transition latency: 300 us. hardware limits: 300 MHz - 1000 MHz available frequency steps: 300 MHz, 600 MHz, 800 MHz, 1000 MHz available cpufreq governors: conservative, userspace, powersave, ondemand, performance current policy: frequency should be within 300 MHz and 1000 MHz. The governor userspace may decide which speed to use within this range. current CPU frequency is 300 MHz (asserted by call to hardware). [root@beagle]# cpupower frequency-set -f 300MHz [root@beagle]# ./pystone.py Pystone(1.1) time for 5 passes = 22.0034 This machine benchmarks at 2272.37 pystones/second [root@beagle]# cpupower frequency-set -f 600MHz [root@beagle]# ./pystone.py Pystone(1.1) time for 5 passes = 10.4669 This machine benchmarks at 4776.98 pystones/second [root@beagle]# cpupower frequency-set -f 800MHz [root@beagle]# ./pystone.py Pystone(1.1) time for 5 passes = 7.81685 This machine benchmarks at 6396.44 pystones/second [root@beagle]# cpupower frequency-set -f 1000MHz [root@beagle]# ./pystone.py Pystone(1.1) time for 5 passes = 6.36032 This machine benchmarks at 7861.24 pystones/second So, the results scale nicely with the clock speed, but all the results are around half as fast as your result at the same clock speed. Regards, Steve ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] BeagleBone Black CPU speed
Hi Steve, It looks like the BeagleBone Black is still running at 550MHz with the latest Fedora 20. Does anyone know what is holding it back from running at 1GHz? Is the a uboot thing, or a kernel thing, or something else? I saw a version of uboot referred to as making the BBB run at 1GHz, but when I tried experimenting with that I got the same 550MHz clock speed. If you're interested could you try the kernel-3.13.0-1.1.fc20 scratch kernel [1] on your BBBlack. It should add freq scaling support and you should be able to tell if it detects it appropriately if the cpufreq-cpu0 module loads. Feedback welcome. Peter [1] http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/arm-kernel/kernel-3.13.0-1.1.fc20.armv7hl.rpm ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] BeagleBone Black CPU speed
It looks like the BeagleBone Black is still running at 550MHz with the latest Fedora 20. Does anyone know what is holding it back from running at 1GHz? Is the a uboot thing, or a kernel thing, or something else? I saw a version of uboot referred to as making the BBB run at 1GHz, but when I tried experimenting with that I got the same 550MHz clock speed. If you're interested could you try the kernel-3.13.0-1.1.fc20 scratch kernel [1] on your BBBlack. It should add freq scaling support and you should be able to tell if it detects it appropriately if the cpufreq-cpu0 module loads. Feedback welcome. So that kernel works with my testing but the module doesn't auto load the cpufreq-cpu0 module. If you do: modprobe cpufreq-cpu0 You then get: cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_available_frequencies 30 60 80 100 Even with 3.12.8 you can manually load that module and it works but you only get up to 720mhz. Peter [1] http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/arm-kernel/kernel-3.13.0-1.1.fc20.armv7hl.rpm ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] BeagleBone Black CPU speed
Hi Peter, On 01/22/2014 04:14 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: It looks like the BeagleBone Black is still running at 550MHz with the latest Fedora 20. Does anyone know what is holding it back from running at 1GHz? Is the a uboot thing, or a kernel thing, or something else? I saw a version of uboot referred to as making the BBB run at 1GHz, but when I tried experimenting with that I got the same 550MHz clock speed. If you're interested could you try the kernel-3.13.0-1.1.fc20 scratch kernel [1] on your BBBlack. It should add freq scaling support and you should be able to tell if it detects it appropriately if the cpufreq-cpu0 module loads. Feedback welcome. So that kernel works with my testing but the module doesn't auto load the cpufreq-cpu0 module. If you do: modprobe cpufreq-cpu0 You then get: cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_available_frequencies 30 60 80 100 Even with 3.12.8 you can manually load that module and it works but you only get up to 720mhz. Peter [1] http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/arm-kernel/kernel-3.13.0-1.1.fc20.armv7hl.rpm Earlier Jos Vos reported the following results for his BeagleBoneBlack running pystone.py Fedora: Pystone(1.1) time for 5 passes = 10.9073 This machine benchmarks at 4584.1 pystones/second Debian: Pystone(1.1) time for 5 passes = 4.38 This machine benchmarks at 11415.5 pystones/second Before this latest kernel I was getting results a few percent slower than he reported for Fedora. With this new kernel RPM I get Pystone(1.1) time for 5 passes = 6.23986 This machine benchmarks at 8013.01 pystones/second That speed is very consistent across runs of the test. The speed has increased, but it seems to still be well below that of Debian. If I use cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/cpuinfo_cur_freq While the machine is idle it says 300MHz. While pystone.py is running it says 1GHz. When the machine is idle, top says the CPU is around 1% loaded. When pystone.py is running it says it is 99.x% loaded. As far as I can tell the clock jumps from 300MHz to 1GHz as pystone.py starts up - i.e there is no substantial lag, resulting in half the test running at 300MHz and half at 1GHz. If my board really is now running pystone.py at 1GHz, I wonder what else could be causing this test to be around 50% slower than with Debian. Regards, Steve ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] BeagleBone Black CPU speed
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Robert Nelson robertcnel...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Steve Underwood ste...@coppice.org wrote: Hi, It looks like the BeagleBone Black is still running at 550MHz with the latest Fedora 20. Does anyone know what is holding it back from running at 1GHz? Is the a uboot thing, or a kernel thing, or something else? I saw a version of uboot referred to as making the BBB run at 1GHz, but when I tried experimenting with that I got the same 550MHz clock speed. with v3.12.x: These 5 patches are needed: https://github.com/RobertCNelson/linux-dev/tree/am33x-v3.12/patches/cpufreq or with v3.13-rcX: https://github.com/RobertCNelson/linux-dev/blob/am33x-v3.13/patches/dts/0002-arm-dts-am335x-boneblack-add-cpu0-opp-points.patch I've enabled the generic cpufreq support, we had it disabled as when it first landed it had problems. The BBB is booting with 3.13rc8 with no patches but there's a few issues I need to resolve this week with USB so I'll review that for the BB patchset to make sure it's there. Is it queued to go upstream for 3.14? Peter ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] BeagleBone Black CPU speed
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 3:52 AM, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Robert Nelson robertcnel...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Steve Underwood ste...@coppice.org wrote: Hi, It looks like the BeagleBone Black is still running at 550MHz with the latest Fedora 20. Does anyone know what is holding it back from running at 1GHz? Is the a uboot thing, or a kernel thing, or something else? I saw a version of uboot referred to as making the BBB run at 1GHz, but when I tried experimenting with that I got the same 550MHz clock speed. with v3.12.x: These 5 patches are needed: https://github.com/RobertCNelson/linux-dev/tree/am33x-v3.12/patches/cpufreq or with v3.13-rcX: https://github.com/RobertCNelson/linux-dev/blob/am33x-v3.13/patches/dts/0002-arm-dts-am335x-boneblack-add-cpu0-opp-points.patch I've enabled the generic cpufreq support, we had it disabled as when it first landed it had problems. The BBB is booting with 3.13rc8 with no patches but there's a few issues I need to resolve this week with USB so I'll review that for the BB patchset to make sure it's there. Is it queued to go upstream for 3.14? 3.14 is closed, I'm cleaning my patches listed in that repo and planning to post to l-a/l-o after v3.14-rc1 hits.. Talking with CircuitCo, they would prefer the default pinmux to be setup like so: http://elinux.org/Basic_Proto_Cape So i'm adding those changes to the push too.. Regards, -- Robert Nelson http://www.rcn-ee.com/ ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] BeagleBone Black CPU speed
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Steve Underwood ste...@coppice.org wrote: Hi, It looks like the BeagleBone Black is still running at 550MHz with the latest Fedora 20. Does anyone know what is holding it back from running at 1GHz? Is the a uboot thing, or a kernel thing, or something else? I saw a version of uboot referred to as making the BBB run at 1GHz, but when I tried experimenting with that I got the same 550MHz clock speed. with v3.12.x: These 5 patches are needed: https://github.com/RobertCNelson/linux-dev/tree/am33x-v3.12/patches/cpufreq or with v3.13-rcX: https://github.com/RobertCNelson/linux-dev/blob/am33x-v3.13/patches/dts/0002-arm-dts-am335x-boneblack-add-cpu0-opp-points.patch Regards, -- Robert Nelson http://www.rcn-ee.com/ ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] BeagleBone Black CPU speed
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Robert Nelson robertcnel...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Steve Underwood ste...@coppice.org wrote: Hi, It looks like the BeagleBone Black is still running at 550MHz with the latest Fedora 20. Does anyone know what is holding it back from running at 1GHz? Is the a uboot thing, or a kernel thing, or something else? I saw a version of uboot referred to as making the BBB run at 1GHz, but when I tried experimenting with that I got the same 550MHz clock speed. with v3.12.x: These 5 patches are needed: https://github.com/RobertCNelson/linux-dev/tree/am33x-v3.12/patches/cpufreq or with v3.13-rcX: https://github.com/RobertCNelson/linux-dev/blob/am33x-v3.13/patches/dts/0002-arm-dts-am335x-boneblack-add-cpu0-opp-points.patch ps, while your at it, also add: https://github.com/RobertCNelson/linux-dev/blob/am33x-v3.13/patches/dts/0001-arm-dts-am335x-boneblack-lcdc-add-panel-info.patch to get the full kms experience over hdmi with the CONFIG_DRM_TILCDC/CONFIG_DRM_I2C_NXP_TDA998X Since they are both dts patches, you don't even have to rebuild the kernel, just patch the dtb file.. Regards, -- Robert Nelson http://www.rcn-ee.com/ ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] BeagleBone Black CPU speed
Hi all, Hey Robert do you have a rc ( 3.13 ) kernel rolled?. Regards On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Robert Nelson robertcnel...@gmail.comwrote: On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Robert Nelson robertcnel...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Steve Underwood ste...@coppice.org wrote: Hi, It looks like the BeagleBone Black is still running at 550MHz with the latest Fedora 20. Does anyone know what is holding it back from running at 1GHz? Is the a uboot thing, or a kernel thing, or something else? I saw a version of uboot referred to as making the BBB run at 1GHz, but when I tried experimenting with that I got the same 550MHz clock speed. with v3.12.x: These 5 patches are needed: https://github.com/RobertCNelson/linux-dev/tree/am33x-v3.12/patches/cpufreq or with v3.13-rcX: https://github.com/RobertCNelson/linux-dev/blob/am33x-v3.13/patches/dts/0002-arm-dts-am335x-boneblack-add-cpu0-opp-points.patch ps, while your at it, also add: https://github.com/RobertCNelson/linux-dev/blob/am33x-v3.13/patches/dts/0001-arm-dts-am335x-boneblack-lcdc-add-panel-info.patch to get the full kms experience over hdmi with the CONFIG_DRM_TILCDC/CONFIG_DRM_I2C_NXP_TDA998X Since they are both dts patches, you don't even have to rebuild the kernel, just patch the dtb file.. Regards, -- Robert Nelson http://www.rcn-ee.com/ ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm -- “Science is a differential equation. Religion is a boundary condition.” Alan Turing ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] BeagleBone Black CPU speed
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Nigel Sollars nsoll...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, Hey Robert do you have a rc ( 3.13 ) kernel rolled?. I do.. https://github.com/RobertCNelson/linux-dev/tree/am33x-v3.13 Just waiting for rc6 to fall, before i push it out to building farm.. The config is really minimal right now, going to throw the kitchen sink at it tomorrow so v3.12.x users won't be missing stuff. Regards, -- Robert Nelson http://www.rcn-ee.com/ ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] Beaglebone Black
On 05/06/2013 08:52 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: Does anyone have Fedora running on the new Beaglebone Black board? Not yet but I've begun working on the kernel and uboot side of things and I should have mine this week so watch this space. Hey, this is great news. Any updates here? Matthias -- Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] Beaglebone Black
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Steve Underwood ste...@coppice.org wrote: Hi, Does anyone have Fedora running on the new Beaglebone Black board? Not yet but I've begun working on the kernel and uboot side of things and I should have mine this week so watch this space. Peter ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] BeagleBone original
You are correct. It took me a while to find it, but the PCDuino from Sparkfun is the one with a direct ethernet connection rather than going through the USB hub, Assuming I read the block diagram correctly. https://www.sparkfun.com/products/11712 and specifically page two of the schematic http://dlnmh9ip6v2uc.cloudfront.net/datasheets/Dev/PCDuino/pcDuino_V01_Schem.pdf The problem with the Beagleboard XM is the usb fails then the board can't be reached through ethernet to diagnose the problem, let alone do remote management. USB is always kind of touchy since the devices connected to it are not as shall we say as well disciplined as ethernet clients. So running your ethernet through the usb host seems like a bad idea. I also thought this message was on the suse list when I responded. [I was clearing email while in line at a store.] I haven't tried fedora on the Beagleboard XM in a while, but the version I tried (17?) did NOT have the usb hub patch, Then 18 didn't work at all. In the mean time I was able to get Opensuse to add the patch to the kernel. Info on the patch here: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg64931.html On 04/30/13 22:40, Peter Robinson wrote: On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 1:44 AM, li...@lazygranch.com wrote: I'm a bit confused here. This is the new Bone, not the original. In any event, the Beagleboard XM is the one with the hub. (4 usb) Also note that board needs a special patch. I'm just watching ther list to see when it is available for opensuse 12.3. Personally, I wish I got the Panda ES rather than the Beagleboard XM. I would have saved myself hours of debugging. The ethernet on the Beagleboard XM runs off an internal usb port. Not the greatest design since it has to share I/O with the rest of the hub. So does the ethernet on the PandaES. ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] BeagleBone original
On 05/01/2013 01:40 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 1:44 AM, li...@lazygranch.com wrote: I'm a bit confused here. This is the new Bone, not the original. In any event, the Beagleboard XM is the one with the hub. (4 usb) Also note that board needs a special patch. I'm just watching ther list to see when it is available for opensuse 12.3. Personally, I wish I got the Panda ES rather than the Beagleboard XM. I would have saved myself hours of debugging. The ethernet on the Beagleboard XM runs off an internal usb port. Not the greatest design since it has to share I/O with the rest of the hub. So does the ethernet on the PandaES. And what about the Cubieboard? ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] BeagleBone original
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 9:50 AM, William Henry whe...@redhat.com wrote: Mine died. I put in for a RMA but have heard nothing back. Can you forward a copy of the e-mail you sent to the RMA team and when you sent it? It looks like it might have messed up any flash memory it might have. I.e it seems to load the BIOS, cause I can get a terminal open on it, There is no BIOS, only ROM that you can't touch. I boots directly off of the uSD card. but it won't boot - so maybe a driver for the SD card is corrupt or something? I even re-imaged the SD card and also tried a Fedora image on a separate card. Won't boot. Without *physical* damage, as long as the SD card is written properly, it'll boot. Are you sure you decompressed the SD card image you were writing? I suspect you likely had some issue writing the SD card. I'm considering the new beaglebone. William Sent from my iPhone On Apr 30, 2013, at 2:56 PM, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote: Hi All, For those that are happy with the original BBone they're on special here at £31.99 at the moment. http://www.phenoptix.com/products/beagle-bone-a6-extras-rev-a6 Peter ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] BeagleBone original
- Original Message - On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 9:50 AM, William Henry whe...@redhat.com wrote: Mine died. I put in for a RMA but have heard nothing back. Can you forward a copy of the e-mail you sent to the RMA team and when you sent it? I used the RMA form on the website. It looks like it might have messed up any flash memory it might have. I.e it seems to load the BIOS, cause I can get a terminal open on it, There is no BIOS, only ROM that you can't touch. I boots directly off of the uSD card. After reading the support website I suspect that might be the case but was hoping it wasn't. but it won't boot - so maybe a driver for the SD card is corrupt or something? I even re-imaged the SD card and also tried a Fedora image on a separate card. Won't boot. Without *physical* damage, as long as the SD card is written properly, it'll boot. Are you sure you decompressed the SD card image you were writing? I suspect you likely had some issue writing the SD card. The board went from working and booting (Angstrom) on my desk to failing and not booting on my desk. So I don't suspect any physical damage. I followed the websites instructions on re-imaging the card. All I get in the terminal is the 'C' characters showing up. Pressing the reset button provides more 'C's. So it went from fully working to not booting without physically moving on my desk. William I'm considering the new beaglebone. William Sent from my iPhone On Apr 30, 2013, at 2:56 PM, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote: Hi All, For those that are happy with the original BBone they're on special here at £31.99 at the moment. http://www.phenoptix.com/products/beagle-bone-a6-extras-rev-a6 Peter ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] BeagleBone original
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:43 PM, William Henry whe...@redhat.com wrote: On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 9:50 AM, William Henry whe...@redhat.com wrote: Mine died. I put in for a RMA but have heard nothing back. Can you forward a copy of the e-mail you sent to the RMA team and when you sent it? I used the RMA form on the website. This is off topic for this thread. Peter ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] BeagleBone original
I'm a bit confused here. This is the new Bone, not the original. In any event, the Beagleboard XM is the one with the hub. (4 usb) Also note that board needs a special patch. I'm just watching ther list to see when it is available for opensuse 12.3. Personally, I wish I got the Panda ES rather than the Beagleboard XM. I would have saved myself hours of debugging. The ethernet on the Beagleboard XM runs off an internal usb port. Not the greatest design since it has to share I/O with the rest of the hub. -Original Message- From: Robert Moskowitz r...@htt-consult.com Sender: arm-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 20:21:20 To: Peter Robinsonpbrobin...@gmail.com Cc: arm@lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Re: [fedora-arm] BeagleBone original On 04/30/2013 04:56 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: Hi All, For those that are happy with the original BBone they're on special here at £31.99 at the moment. http://www.phenoptix.com/products/beagle-bone-a6-extras-rev-a6 I am going to be in England monday tuesday, so could arrange for one of two of these sent to my colleagues that I am meeting with. IF this worth my time. Is there an ethercard addon for it? Preferably 4 ports? I am not finding any pointers. ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] BeagleBone original
On 04/30/2013 08:44 PM, li...@lazygranch.com wrote: I'm a bit confused here. This is the new Bone, not the original. In any event, the Beagleboard XM is the one with the hub. (4 usb) I want ethernet, not USB. Seeing later in this thread, I guess I pass on this one. Not what I am looking for. One of these days, I will find something that matches what I want to work on. Also note that board needs a special patch. I'm just watching ther list to see when it is available for opensuse 12.3. Personally, I wish I got the Panda ES rather than the Beagleboard XM. I would have saved myself hours of debugging. The ethernet on the Beagleboard XM runs off an internal usb port. Not the greatest design since it has to share I/O with the rest of the hub. -Original Message- From: Robert Moskowitz r...@htt-consult.com Sender: arm-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 20:21:20 To: Peter Robinsonpbrobin...@gmail.com Cc: arm@lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Re: [fedora-arm] BeagleBone original On 04/30/2013 04:56 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: Hi All, For those that are happy with the original BBone they're on special here at £31.99 at the moment. http://www.phenoptix.com/products/beagle-bone-a6-extras-rev-a6 I am going to be in England monday tuesday, so could arrange for one of two of these sent to my colleagues that I am meeting with. IF this worth my time. Is there an ethercard addon for it? Preferably 4 ports? I am not finding any pointers. ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] BeagleBone original
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 1:44 AM, li...@lazygranch.com wrote: I'm a bit confused here. This is the new Bone, not the original. In any event, the Beagleboard XM is the one with the hub. (4 usb) Also note that board needs a special patch. I'm just watching ther list to see when it is available for opensuse 12.3. Personally, I wish I got the Panda ES rather than the Beagleboard XM. I would have saved myself hours of debugging. The ethernet on the Beagleboard XM runs off an internal usb port. Not the greatest design since it has to share I/O with the rest of the hub. So does the ethernet on the PandaES. ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] beaglebone?
On 07/12/2012 09:40 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote: On 07/12/2012 04:25 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote: I am making an experimental image right now. I will send a followup email when it is ready for testing. Update: The image is done, but evidently not going to work. While we have an upstream MLO/uboot solution, some of the necessary pieces for a beaglebone kernel are not yet upstream. Since we don't pull random kernel trees this isn't going to work out of the box. People with beaglebones should grab an alternate kernel and use it with the F17 GA tarball until this support lands upstream. Once it's in the upstream kernel tree we'll have working images. Thanks for the info... guess I'll prototype with a Pandaboard for now. - Mike ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] beaglebone?
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak m...@avtechpulse.com wrote: Hi all, Is a ready-to-go F17 image available for testing the BeagleBone yet? Is there an ETA? - Mike Hi, isn't the BeagleBone using the same processor than the BeagleBoard (same Cortex A8) I would think that both are equivalent and one image could power them both. The beaglebone just have less ports. Cheers, -- Kévin Raymond (shaiton) GPG-Key: A5BCB3A2 ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] beaglebone?
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Kévin Raymond shai...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak m...@avtechpulse.com wrote: Hi all, Is a ready-to-go F17 image available for testing the BeagleBone yet? Is there an ETA? - Mike Hi, isn't the BeagleBone using the same processor than the BeagleBoard (same Cortex A8) I would think that both are equivalent and one image could power them both. The beaglebone just have less ports. Nope, completely new A8 SoC. Peter ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] beaglebone?
On 07/12/2012 08:08 AM, Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak wrote: Hi all, Is a ready-to-go F17 image available for testing the BeagleBone yet? Is there an ETA? I am making an experimental image right now. I will send a followup email when it is ready for testing. -- Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / b...@redhat.com ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
