> Am 16.09.2025 um 14:38 schrieb Peter Robinson via arm <arm@lists.fedoraproject.org>:
>
>>> ...
>>
>> There are cases where Fedora/uboot does not work, but Fedora/EDK2 does. This is probably the case, for example, for the newer RockChip devices based on rk35xx.
>
> I have not seen any bug reports about U-Boot, what are the issues?
There are no bug reports because the Radxa Rock Pi5 is not supported at all, i.e. it doesn't work with Fedora at all, at the moment.
>> In any case, I flashed EDK2 onto my Radxa Pi5 model b and was then able to boot both the (unmodified) raw image and the DVD iso and install with Anaconda. And EDK2 supports a large number of this new generation from a variety of manufacturers, including pine64 and LibreComputer. If Fedora could be used on all of these at once, that would be excellent.
>
> What hardware is supported, is all the display working?
I can use all the peripherals like USB, NVMe, SD. I use it for Server, and terminal works fine. And Anaconda was able to produce the graphical output, so at least the basic works (probably no hardware acceleration, I don't know).
So, it would be fine for Server (and probably for IoT and CoreOS), but maybe not for Workstation.
> The problem is that the EDK2 builds tend to be forks that are done
> once and not maintained, not upstreamed, so there's not CVEs, no
> changes when upstream kernel changes and may support a limited set of
> hardware. So they work fine for a snapshot in time but possibly may
> cause issues as other things evolve.
OK, that's bad and makes it probably unsuitable for Server.
>> Could we "officially" add devices that are equipped with EDK2 and work to the list of supported devices?
>
> If you want to do the builds, deal with all the support issues with
> early boot problems, CVEs etc and the EDK2 builds are fully open
> source without random binary blobs, sure anyone is free to enable it.
> Once it's in Fedora we can then review what official looks like. I
> personally don't have the time nor interest to deal with EDK2.
No, I don't want to do any builds, but leave it up to the user or board maker to provide a workable EDK2.
If they can manage that, can we then support it either with our raw image or with the ISO DVD?
With the x86 boards, we also don't take any responsibility for whether the manufacturer implements the AMI or other firmware correctly or the user configures the firmware incorrectly.
Simply put: Can we state that, if the firmware, in this case EDK2, works as intended, then our SBC image can be used, or an installation via ISO and Anaconda can be performed.
Or even simpler: We currently require „SBSA and SystemReady machines", can we simply add „or running EDK2 firmware"?
>> This would be a huge step forward, especially for Fedora Server (which is my area of expertise in Fedora). After some initial testing in real-world operation, my Rock Pi5 can definitely compete with an Intel N100 device and is significantly better in terms of power consumption.
>
> Why would it be a huge step forward, please outline the pros/cons of
> EDK2 vs U-Boot.
I don't want to judge whether one or the other is better. The progress made with EDK in this case is that it makes the newer boards *currently* usable with Fedora at all.
These newer RockChip boards offer significantly higher performance with only a moderate increase in power consumption, feature all the latest storage interfaces, and often have a board design and cases ("stackable") that make them very well suited for Fedora Server.
And I would like to make that usable for Server. With regard to Radxa Pi5 and other RockChip 35xx boards, we have had to do without it for more than a year.
>> Unfortunately, I have not been able to test any of the other Rockchip models yet. And RockChip is particularly suitable for Fedora Server because it offers a range of models that are well suited for servers (we have not yet found anything from other chip/board manufacturers) - if they would be supported by Fedora.
>
> It's also suitable for workstation, because of the decent GPU, amount
> of memory etc, and for Edge because of the range of peripherals like
> CAN, NPUs etc, but if you're going to support EDK2 and make it
> official on these devices you can't exclude editions.
Sorry, for the maybe unsuitable wording. I don't want to exclude anything. However, I can only speak for Fedora Server and assess things for Server.
PeterB
--
Peter Boy
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pboy
PBoy@fedoraproject.org
Timezone: CET (UTC+1) / CEST (UTC+2)
Fedora Server Edition Working Group member
Fedora Docs team contributor and board member
Java developer and enthusiast
--
_______________________________________________
arm mailing list -- arm@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to arm-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/arm@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
No comments:
Post a Comment