I would like to introduce myself to the group. I have recently
received an IGEPv2 board , which is based on the Beagle Board, but
with wifi, bluetooth, ethernet, and more RAM. I'm still at the "wow,
it's tiny and it runs Linux" stage. I should get a bit more time over
the next month and Christmas to play around properly with it.
I'm new to embedded development, but neither new to Linux nor ARM
(writing my first ARM assembly some 15 years ago). However, for the
past 6 years I've not even built a Linux kernel, preferring to use the
default kernel in Fedora for simplicity :)
Firstly, a thank you to those involved in Fedora ARM for getting it to
this stage. If I get the time, I'd really like to contribute some
(probably small) effort to help get Fedora ARM working well on the
IGEPv2 and Beagle Board. As I progress, I'd like to know what I can
do to help.
In the meantime, I have some questions. Apologies in advance if these
1) There are various different kernels from different sources. I'm
used to there being a small set of "right" kernels (that is, Fedora's
idea of "right") for x86. I fully appreciate that different ARM-based
boards are quite different in capabilities (like different instruction
a) Is there likely to be some standardised vanilla Fedora ARM kernel
source? (Or is that simply the source RPM available for Fedora?)
Then patches /could/ be offered for the more common systems (e.g.
Beagle Board & clones, SheevaPlug).
b) Would it then make sense to offer these as pre-built RPMs for common systems?
c) Is there any guidance on which version is good to use as a base?
I've seen quite different kernel versions being used (from 2.6.27 to
2) I understand a little bit about the different calling conventions,
FP differences (e.g. soft FPU versus VFP), and instruction set
differences (v5 versus v7).
a) Can the kernel can be safely built with a different instruction set
targeted? (I know there are different optimisation options passed to
GCC. Apologies if this seems a bit newbie-ish.)
b) For FP-heavy programs (e.g. ogg encoding), is it possible to build
the packages with VFP/NEON but still get them to work in a soft FPU
system? I'd imagine any call to an external library would have to
somehow be defined to use a different calling standard.
3) There seem to be some missing dependencies in the packages in the
current Fedora ARM repository. For example, emacs is requiring
libotf, which doesn't seem to be there in the repository. And
likewise with the xorg-x11-font* packages needing ttmkdir. I'm
confused as to how the RPM could have been successfully built without
it. What am I missing?
4) I see there has been some discussion over unaligned data access.
(Oh, I remember that from the ARM2 days.) It seems as if the
Cortex-A8 cores allow unaligned data access when set up to do so .
Does this, in any way, help with the compatibility of packages
5) I've managed to get various source packages missing from the Fedora
ARM repositories to compile successfully (natively). I guess there is
a reason why there are not in the repos right now -- is that reason
down to time and priorities, or is there some blocking bugs with many
of these packages?
I look forward to being able to contribute something back into Fedora!
Mine is on order, with specific intent to use the WLAN so this thread has my full attention. More than happy to pitch in once mine comes in.
Red Hat Inc.
From: Bernhard Schuster [schuster.bernhard(a)googlemail.com]
Received: 8/19/10 1:07 PM
To: Jon Hermansen [jon.hermansen(a)gmail.com]
CC: Fedora ARM secondary architecture list [arm(a)lists.fedoraproject.org]
Subject: Re: [fedora-arm] Guruplug | uaputl fail
Other question, did any one else ever try toget wlan workin on GuruPlug
Server? Success? fail?
Have discovered with the help of a hackerspace group that
my StorCenter ix-200 http://tinyurl.com/27tegxl
has Debian 5 under the hood,
with some Vendor firmware bits invloved.
# uname -smr
Linux 220.127.116.11 armv5tejl
Would it be possible to convert to Fedora?
Only have a lan connection to it.
Friend of Fedora
Id like to have us look at what we need to do to support both software floating
point and hardware floating point support.
I had been under the impression that all we would need to do is to build glibc
with hardfp support. however that may not be the case. and we may need to
build everything with hardfp support.
this is just to get discussion rolling
I chrooted into a failed glibc mockbuild and ran "make" again in the glibc
build directory to get the gcc incantation for libanl.so that has been
causing the glibc build to fail. The beginning of the several-lines-long
gcc command looks like:
gcc -shared -static-libgcc -Wl,-O1 -Wl,-z,defs
If you remove the "-static-libgcc" flag from the gcc command, libanl.so is
able to build successfully. I don't know why libgcc_eh.a's
__stack_chk_guard isn't resolved by the definition in /lib/ld-linux.so.3,
but the problem can apparently be sidestepped by removing "-static-libgcc"
from the equation entirely.
I figured I'd share my findings in case someone knows how to get around this
from within the makefiles. I'm still hacking at it, but I haven't gotten
I am running a Fedora ARM VM using Virtual Machine Manager.
I had followed the steps described
I am getting the following error when I run it and the VM doesn't start:
Error starting domain: internal error process exited while connecting
to monitor: bus "pci.0" not found
Did not find pci.0 bus for lsi53c895a