[fedora-arm] Re: U-Boot vs EDK2 on Pi 4

> Am 15.09.2025 um 22:11 schrieb Peter Robinson via arm <arm@lists.fedoraproject.org>:
>
>> ….
>
> There's a lot of other problems with the EDK2 support, it's fine for
> some usecases and not for others.
>
> Given that we have to support U-Boot on all the 100s of other devices
> we support U-Boot has always made sense because EDK2 support is a lot
> more varied and it ends up being a game of whack-a-mole in
> forks/branches so in general it's an order of magnitude less work to
> support U-Boot even though it's not perfect, but then nor is EDK2.

I hope I'm not hijacking this thread with my question:

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.

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.

Could we "officially" add devices that are equipped with EDK2 and work to the list of supported devices?

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.

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.

> - - - - <
A side question:
When booting the Pi5, I get the following messages:

Kernel 6.17.0-0.rc2.24.fc43
rockchip-pm-domain fd8d8000.power-management:power-controller:
sync_state() pending due to fdba4000.video-codec
sync_state() pending due to fdba8000.video-codec
sync_state() pending due to fdbac000.video-cedec

sched: DL replenisch lagged too much . . . .
. . . .
block nvmc0n1: No UUID available providing old NGUID


I have not encountered any follow-up problems so far. Nevertheless, how problematic are these messages?



--
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