Showstoppers for RPI3

[Klaus Küchemann]

Hi Mark,

> Am 27.02.2020 um 00:59 schrieb Mark Linimon <linimon at lonesome.com>:
> 
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 05:11:35PM +0100, Klaus Küchemann via freebsd-arm wrote:
>> but Ed Maste stated a clear aarch64->Tier1-roadmap
> 
> I'll try not to speak for Ed here other than to say I know he often sees
> things from the "aarch64 server box installed in rack" view.  And IIUC
> we do fairly well on those.

No problem to install a bunch of crappy consumer boards into a server-rack :-).. just kidding..

> Mark Linimon
> 
> The problem is that aarch64 has this bewildering variety of hardware;
> some very capable and well-documented, others not so.
> 
> IMHO there's no possible way that we can be a first-class platform on
> every single arm board that's ever been made

It’s all better than we think, it’s just time consuming and a thing of organization 
Maybe not for every board but for nearly every board which is worth ..

> Mark Linimon
> 
>> and it looks funny when we fail in supporting devices while others do
> 
> If NetBSD has drivers, then we should see if there is interest in porting
> them over.

Finally a reasonable attitude from someone here, Mark

> Mark Linimon
> 
> (The number of people on the two projects differs a lot, especially w/rt
> non-x86 platforms, so it's kind of hard to say in general.  I do know we
> are ahead w/rt powerpc64.)
> 
> But the real roadblock is the chips whose specs are under NDA.  No one
> seems to have any ideas of how to work around that.  So, if we can't
> work around it, and also can't port otherBSD drivers, we are stuck.

also OpenBSD is very successful active in this discipline…
Today I’ve  got a Broadcom-Wifi-device to work (with an openbsd-driver-dev)

> Am 27.02.2020 um 01:03 schrieb Mark Linimon <linimon at lonesome.com>:
> 
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 07:27:37AM -0600, Kyle Evans wrote:
>> This platform is on life support on FreeBSD with exactly maybe two
>> developers doing anything on it
> 
> I am hoping that by "this platform" you mean RPI4?
> 
> There are certainly more people working on the ports side than just 2.
> 
>> it's highly demotivating to then receive comments like this.
> 


> I've talked to Klaus as some length and I think part of all this is
> due to a language barrier.

Thanks Mark, yes, I say   sorry again to Kyle and Ian,
Kyle is the one who made the RPI4 booting,
who am I that I  could think I had the right to say something bad to him or other devs ?! .
I couldn't just explain in native English language what I meant..
Hopefully these sentences do work in yours native English language  :-)

> 
> But it is *very* frustrating to have developers saying "we *must*
> have RPI4" and "we *cannot* have RPI4" -- even for someone like me
> whose only involvement is trying to update documentation.
> 
> mcl

We`lll update the docs, for sure, there’s of course no must have for any gadget 
But there are a lot which work and can be improved e.g. by adopting drivers from other BSDs,
If here are none available.. 

Thank you 
Regards
Klaus