On 13/02/2016 10:50, Gordan Bobic wrote:
In fairness, there is nothing actually wrong with using uboot. UEFI is
a can of worms I have been tolerating out of lack of choice, but
personally, given a choice between entirely closed source UEFI blob
boot loader and uboot, I'd choose the latter every time.
I agree.
I'm loathe to try and upgrade to UEFI using the info a
thttps://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures/AArch64/Hardware/Mustang?rd=Architectures/ARM/AArch64/Mustang#Upgrade_to_UEFI
as it isn't truly a Mustang board.
But do you _actually_ need UEFI for any particular reason? What is the
advantage? If anyting, uboot supports loading the kernel from a
half-decent file system (such as ext4) , whereas UEFI requires a FAT
partition to work.
The 'mustang' centos install docs list it as a requirement, that's all
and the boards are closely related.
When I asked a similar question about
this board there a few months ago, they seemed to think it should work
with their standard ARMv8 image.
I'll try with uboot but I guess the kernel install will not succeed,
though I may get a rootfs.
I wouldn't be so sure about the kernel install not succeeding. Most
things are in place to support wrapping the kernel for uboot (look at
/sbin/new-kernel-pkg, particularly the mkimage lines). Uboot is
actually remarkably prolific and well supported.
The centos install kernel fails to boot (as does the debian installer
kernel) but, unlike the debian installer, the centos installer fails to
run with the Gigabyte supplied kernel.
I'll keep prodding.
--
Mike Howard
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users@lists.redsleeve.org
https://lists.redsleeve.org/mailman/listinfo/users
