arm support of workstation product

[Matthew Garrett]

On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 03:04:15PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:

> My concern would be that without it being an official target from the
> start, we run the risk of brokenness being found late in the game.
> Does it seem possible to add an "official" designation to ARM (and
> i686 for that matter) if things prove to be working by whatever cutoff
> date we have?  That would seem to put more impetus on the people doing
> the things you suggest without us declaring either of those
> architectures by default.

Yeah, I think that it would be an error to commit to it until there's 
been a demonstration that this is achievable - and the onus should be 
on the ARM people to demonstrate that. I don't want to end up with one 
of our first deliverables being a sub-par experience. If it can't run 
Shell reliably and with adequate performance then it buys us nothing to 
ship it.

> I'm not as optimistic as some when it comes to viable accelerated
> graphics hardware on ARM in the F21 timeframe.  If testing of
> Workstation ARM can't even begin until things are merged, and that
> happens at the tail end of the development window, I don't really want
> us to be stuck in the blocker/demotion game if it doesn't happen.
> Opportunistic "promotion" seems a decent compromise.

Not going to disagree.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org