Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.kernel > #81489 > unrolled thread

What to do with d-i on armel?

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.kernel

Contents

  What to do with d-i on armel? Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> - 2024-01-07 23:30 +0100
    Re: What to do with d-i on armel? Emanuele Rocca <ema@debian.org> - 2024-01-09 20:00 +0100
      Re: What to do with d-i on armel? Martin <debacle@debian.org> - 2024-01-09 23:30 +0100
        Re: What to do with d-i on armel? Martin <debacle@debian.org> - 2024-03-04 01:40 +0100
          Re: What to do with d-i on armel? Gianluca Renzi <icjtqr@gmail.com> - 2024-03-04 07:10 +0100
      Re: What to do with d-i on armel? Christoph Biedl <debian.axhn@manchmal.in-ulm.de> - 2024-03-03 20:40 +0100
        Re: What to do with d-i on armel? Ástor Ayllón Lázaro <thosleaf@gmail.com> - 2024-03-03 22:00 +0100
    Re: What to do with d-i on armel? "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de> - 2024-01-10 09:00 +0100
      Future for armel? (was: Re: What to do with d-i on armel?) Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> - 2024-01-10 10:00 +0100
        Re: Future for armel? (was: Re: What to do with d-i on armel?) Martin <debacle@debian.org> - 2024-01-10 10:50 +0100
          Re: Future for armel? (was: Re: What to do with d-i on armel?) Dimitri John Ledkov <dimitri.ledkov@canonical.com> - 2024-01-10 11:50 +0100
      Re: What to do with d-i on armel? "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de> - 2024-01-19 18:00 +0100
        Re: What to do with d-i on armel? Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> - 2024-01-19 18:10 +0100
    Re: What to do with d-i on armel? Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> - 2024-03-03 21:10 +0100
      Re: What to do with d-i on armel? Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> - 2024-03-04 12:30 +0100
        Re: What to do with d-i on armel? Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> - 2024-03-04 12:30 +0100
      Re: What to do with d-i on armel? Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org> - 2024-03-09 08:00 +0100

#81489 — What to do with d-i on armel?

Hi

With Linux 6.6 we dropped the Marvell specific kernel image, as it
was not known to work on any of the available devices.  We still have
another armel kernel left, the one of the Raspberry Pi 0 and 1, which
uses an ARMv6 CPU.

This also removed all the udebs from armel, which makes many d-i
components not longer have fullfiled dependencies and the release stuff
of course acting up.

Do we have any armel subarch that can be installed via d-i?

Bastian

-- 
Without freedom of choice there is no creativity.
		-- Kirk, "The return of the Archons", stardate 3157.4

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#81506

Hi Bastian,

On Sun, Jan 07, 2024 at 11:07:48PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> Do we have any armel subarch that can be installed via d-i?

Not as far as I know, perhaps Sledge has more info on this? Also, I don't think
we've seen anyone mentioning armel in ages on debian-boot, both in terms of
installation reports and in general asking questions. Correct me if I'm wrong
though. Any armel users out there? :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81508

On 2024-01-09 19:56, Emanuele Rocca wrote:
> though. Any armel users out there? :-)

My employer uses Debian on armel, but not d-i :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#82005

On 2024-01-09 22:19, Martin wrote:
> On 2024-01-09 19:56, Emanuele Rocca wrote:
>> though. Any armel users out there? :-)
>
> My employer uses Debian on armel, but not d-i :-)

I should add: We never used d-i on armel and have our own kernel.
Most other stuff is plain Debian, though.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#82006

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

The same here. We never used the d-i but we are using Debian systems
(kernel and root file system) as daily bases of our line of products
embedded systems. Hundred of thousands of boards are using Debian since
Debian Lenny 5.0. From armel to armhf 32 bit systems.
So a drop of the armel and/or armhf will force us to a very complicated
rearrangement of our build systems.
Please don't do that if you can.

Best regards


Il lun 4 mar 2024, 01:34 Martin <debacle@debian.org> ha scritto:

> On 2024-01-09 22:19, Martin wrote:
> > On 2024-01-09 19:56, Emanuele Rocca wrote:
> >> though. Any armel users out there? :-)
> >
> > My employer uses Debian on armel, but not d-i :-)
>
> I should add: We never used d-i on armel and have our own kernel.
> Most other stuff is plain Debian, though.
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#82002

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Emanuele Rocca wrote...

> Any armel users out there? :-)

Fairly late, but just to avoid the impression there aren't any left:
Yes, here.

But that's not an objection against plans in Debian kernel and/or d-i,
I'm using my own kernel, and should I ever have the need of a new
installation, I know how to debootstrap and the rest.

Besides, the hardware is a Seagate DockStar, so

Architecture:           armv5tel
  Byte Order:           Little Endian
CPU(s):                 1
  On-line CPU(s) list:  0
Vendor ID:              Marvell
  Model name:           Feroceon-88FR131

and 128 Mbytes of RAM. Running Debian stable already requires some hacks
to not end up in thrashing, I might do a presentation "Running Debian on
small systems" some day about it.

In summary, I'm glad Debian keeps supporting this device - but I'm
aware the good times are in the past and it will very likely become
e-waste before the hardware dies. If not Debian ends the support, the
Linux kernel will.

    Christoph

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#82004

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

just another armel-debian user here, running in an old intel es4000 since
2006.

On Sun, 3 Mar 2024, 20:31 Christoph Biedl, <debian.axhn@manchmal.in-ulm.de>
wrote:

> Emanuele Rocca wrote...
>
> > Any armel users out there? :-)
>
> Fairly late, but just to avoid the impression there aren't any left:
> Yes, here.
>
> But that's not an objection against plans in Debian kernel and/or d-i,
> I'm using my own kernel, and should I ever have the need of a new
> installation, I know how to debootstrap and the rest.
>
> Besides, the hardware is a Seagate DockStar, so
>
> Architecture:           armv5tel
>   Byte Order:           Little Endian
> CPU(s):                 1
>   On-line CPU(s) list:  0
> Vendor ID:              Marvell
>   Model name:           Feroceon-88FR131
>
> and 128 Mbytes of RAM. Running Debian stable already requires some hacks
> to not end up in thrashing, I might do a presentation "Running Debian on
> small systems" some day about it.
>
> In summary, I'm glad Debian keeps supporting this device - but I'm
> aware the good times are in the past and it will very likely become
> e-waste before the hardware dies. If not Debian ends the support, the
> Linux kernel will.
>
>     Christoph
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81514

On Sun, Jan 7, 2024, at 23:07, Bastian Blank wrote:
> Hi
>
> With Linux 6.6 we dropped the Marvell specific kernel image, as it
> was not known to work on any of the available devices.  We still have
> another armel kernel left, the one of the Raspberry Pi 0 and 1, which
> uses an ARMv6 CPU.
>
> This also removed all the udebs from armel, which makes many d-i
> components not longer have fullfiled dependencies and the release stuff
> of course acting up.
>
> Do we have any armel subarch that can be installed via d-i?

A few ideas from the kernel's point of view:

The most important ARMv5 platform is now probably at91, as
Microchip still releases new sam9 chips[1] and is going to
keep supporting it for a while.
I would guess that the latest ones are not even that far off
the performance of the kirkwood/mv78xx0 or bcm2835 parts,
but I don't have numbers.

Qemu versatilepb is probably the most accessible arm926
platform, though there are a couple of other armv5/v6 (ast2400,
ast2500, pxa27x, raspi1ap) in qemu that one should be able
to get to work as well if anyone found the time.

Since armel userland should work fine with any armhf or
arm64 kernel, it might still be useful to repackage
one or both of those for the armel archive and use this
to have an installation method for armel on modern
hardware. [Side note: I would also like to see an arm64
kernel image added to armhf, it's probably more useful
than the armmp-lpae kernel in terms of enabling users.]

At the moment, it is possible to enable support for
arm1176 (as in bcm2835) in a normal armhf kernel and
have that boot on armv6k, armv7 and armv8 hardware.
I actually want to change that in the kernel though:
Now that we dropped SMP support in armv6, as it now
makes more sense to have armv6k grouped with armv5
and instead have a generic kernel for armel that
works on bcm2835, versatilepb, at91, kirkwood and
all the others that one might use.

     Arnd

[1] https://www.microchip.com/en-us/product/sam9x75

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81515 — Future for armel? (was: Re: What to do with d-i on armel?)

[dropped some recipients, this mail is not about d-i and the problem at
hand]

Hi

On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 08:34:27AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> The most important ARMv5 platform is now probably at91, as
> Microchip still releases new sam9 chips[1] and is going to
> keep supporting it for a while.

If I interpret arch/arm/mach-at91/Kconfig correctly, then at91 is a
family with v4, v5 and v7 devices.  The v7 ones should work with armhf,
so here we are only concerned about the v4 and v5 ones.  For none of
them does Debian provide a kernel.

> Since armel userland should work fine with any armhf or
> arm64 kernel, it might still be useful to repackage
> one or both of those for the armel archive and use this
> to have an installation method for armel on modern
> hardware.

But why?  What is provided by an armel userland that armhf can't?

>           [Side note: I would also like to see an arm64
> kernel image added to armhf, it's probably more useful
> than the armmp-lpae kernel in terms of enabling users.]

Not gonna happen.  "dpkg --add-architecture arm64" is the way to go.

> At the moment, it is possible to enable support for
> arm1176 (as in bcm2835) in a normal armhf kernel and
> have that boot on armv6k, armv7 and armv8 hardware.

Our armhf is armv7.  Does armv6k fullfil the requirements as well?

The armv8 hardware can just use our arm64 kernel.

> I actually want to change that in the kernel though:
> Now that we dropped SMP support in armv6, as it now
> makes more sense to have armv6k grouped with armv5
> and instead have a generic kernel for armel that
> works on bcm2835, versatilepb, at91, kirkwood and
> all the others that one might use.

Send patches?

Bastian

-- 
Virtue is a relative term.
		-- Spock, "Friday's Child", stardate 3499.1

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81516 — Re: Future for armel? (was: Re: What to do with d-i on armel?)

Quoting Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org>:
> But why?  What is provided by an armel userland that armhf can't?

My employer runs Debian on this armv5(?) hardware:

https://www.taskit.de/produkte/embedded-produkte/computer-on-module/132/stamp9g20-512f/128r

Sure, the kernel is not the Debian one, but something around 4.19.

Cheers

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81517 — Re: Future for armel? (was: Re: What to do with d-i on armel?)

On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 at 09:46, Martin <debacle@debian.org> wrote:
>
> Quoting Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org>:
> > But why?  What is provided by an armel userland that armhf can't?
>
> My employer runs Debian on this armv5(?) hardware:
>
> https://www.taskit.de/produkte/embedded-produkte/computer-on-module/132/stamp9g20-512f/128r
>
> Sure, the kernel is not the Debian one, but something around 4.19.

Such deployment only needs Debian archive, without a need for a debian
kernel nor debian d-i build for said arch. A sort of partial / rootfs
chroot-only arch.

-- 
Dimitri

Sent from Ubuntu Pro
https://ubuntu.com/pro

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81610

On Wed, Jan 17, 2024, at 23:54, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-01-10 at 08:34 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> 
>> Qemu versatilepb is probably the most accessible arm926
>> platform, though there are a couple of other armv5/v6 (ast2400,
>> ast2500, pxa27x, raspi1ap) in qemu that one should be able
>> to get to work as well if anyone found the time.
>
> We used to have a configuration for Versatile, but it got broken
> accidentally; when I found out I removed it because no-one had
> complained in 9 months.  (Maybe that was a bit quick!)
>
> We do have a configuration for RPi 0/1, which is supported with images
> at <https://raspi.debian.net/> rather than through d-i.
>
> I don't think anyone has proposed configurations to support the other
> platforms.

My guess is that the remaining armel users expect a bit of
manual work, and tend to have their own kernels. Setting up
qemu is rather tricky as well, so I would tend to assume I
made a mistake if I can't get the versatilepb kernel to work,
not a bug in the package.

I definitely put a lot of work into the kernel changes
myself that enabled us to have a multiplatform kernel
for all armv5 targets as of linux-6.1, and I think it's
a bit sad to see this not getting used in Debian at all.

>> Since armel userland should work fine with any armhf or
>> arm64 kernel, it might still be useful to repackage
>> one or both of those for the armel archive and use this
>> to have an installation method for armel on modern
>> hardware. [Side note: I would also like to see an arm64
>> kernel image added to armhf, it's probably more useful
>> than the armmp-lpae kernel in terms of enabling users.]
>
> We used to do this for amd64 kernels on i386.  Then Debian implemented
> multiarch and it became an unnecessary waste of build resources. 
> Still, we are lacking support for adding a "foreign" architecture and
> kernel package at installation time.

mipsel (now discontinued) also does the same thing by
shipping only 64-bit kernels for loongson and octeon hardware,
plus a 32-bit kernel for the malta reference system.

The situation for mipsel and armhf is similar here, as
most modern SoCs really requires running a 64-bit kernel,
but you often don't have enough RAM to install the 64-bit
userland on small systems. On x86, this is usually not
an issue since all current 64-bit machines are still
able to boot a 32-bit installer and then get the 64-bit
kernel later.

Granted, this is much less important on armel today,
since there is really no reason to run armel userland
on armv7 or armv8 hardware other than for debugging.

It would be nice to have an easy way to run the armel
installer with an armhf kernel for setting up an armel
rootfs in qemu, but debvm probably fills this niche better
already. If armhf ever moves to requiring vfpv3-d32 and
neon, having an armel installer with an armv7 kernel
for the handful of non-neon machines would be helpful
though.

> (This specific combination would also be hard to support in the current
> linux packaging because arm64 and armhf have different kernel
> architectures and toolchains, unlike amd64 and i386.)

Right, though changing the kernel package to support this
sounds easier than changing the installer to use a
foreign architecture kernel package.

>> At the moment, it is possible to enable support for
>> arm1176 (as in bcm2835) in a normal armhf kernel and
>> have that boot on armv6k, armv7 and armv8 hardware.
>> I actually want to change that in the kernel though:
>> Now that we dropped SMP support in armv6, as it now
>> makes more sense to have armv6k grouped with armv5
>> and instead have a generic kernel for armel that
>> works on bcm2835, versatilepb, at91, kirkwood and
>> all the others that one might use.
>
> If someone wants to make this work in Debian that would be great, but
> without a specific maintainer it's not going to happen.

Understood.

     Arnd

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81611

On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 05:33:23PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Right, though changing the kernel package to support this
> sounds easier than changing the installer to use a
> foreign architecture kernel package.

Well.  It is a "dpkg --add-architecture" in the right spot of
base-installer/debian/bootstrap-base.postinst.

Bastian

-- 
Yes, it is written.  Good shall always destroy evil.
		-- Sirah the Yang, "The Omega Glory", stardate unknown

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#82003

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> (2024-01-07):
> With Linux 6.6 we dropped the Marvell specific kernel image, as it
> was not known to work on any of the available devices.  We still have
> another armel kernel left, the one of the Raspberry Pi 0 and 1, which
> uses an ARMv6 CPU.
> 
> This also removed all the udebs from armel, which makes many d-i
> components not longer have fullfiled dependencies and the release stuff
> of course acting up.
> 
> Do we have any armel subarch that can be installed via d-i?

Unless we get something to support in d-i, I'm wondering how to proceed
with dropping support for armel. Unsupported things tend to move to
ports while still being supported by porters, so we don't have much to
do there besides go with the flow. That'd be the first time (that I can
think of) that we have an FTBFS-ing d-i for an architecture that's in
unstable.

Maybe have it marked Not-For-Us on armel, also requesting the binary to
be dropped there? And maybe poke the ftp team to have installer-armel/
cleaned up? (The “disabling daily builds” part being trivial.)

I see no time pressure here, we have a big transition going on, so it
doesn't seem particularly fitting to try and get a d-i release out any
day soon.


Cheers,
-- 
Cyril Brulebois (kibi@debian.org)            <https://debamax.com/>
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#82018

[ Remove -arm and -release }

Hi

On Sun, Mar 03, 2024 at 09:01:06PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Maybe have it marked Not-For-Us on armel, also requesting the binary to
> be dropped there? And maybe poke the ftp team to have installer-armel/
> cleaned up? (The “disabling daily builds” part being trivial.)

i would remove the d-i package itself (don't we already set the
supported architectures?)

Cleanup installer-armel.

Remove armel specific udeb sources (I doubt we hve any).

I would not try to remove udebs itself but just continue to build them.

Bastian

-- 
No one wants war.
		-- Kirk, "Errand of Mercy", stardate 3201.7

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#82019

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> (2024-03-04):
> On Sun, Mar 03, 2024 at 09:01:06PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > Maybe have it marked Not-For-Us on armel, also requesting the binary to
> > be dropped there? And maybe poke the ftp team to have installer-armel/
> > cleaned up? (The “disabling daily builds” part being trivial.)
> 
> i would remove the d-i package itself (don't we already set the
> supported architectures?)

No, at least not in debian/control, that's why I'm asking. I would love
to avoid having to maintain a list of architectures…

> Cleanup installer-armel.

ACK.

> Remove armel specific udeb sources (I doubt we hve any).

Doesn't ring a bell.

> I would not try to remove udebs itself but just continue to build them.

Sure, nothing to gain there.


Cheers,
-- 
Cyril Brulebois (kibi@debian.org)            <https://debamax.com/>
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#82058

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi,

On 03-03-2024 9:01 p.m., Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Maybe have it marked Not-For-Us on armel, also requesting the binary to
> be dropped there? And maybe poke the ftp team to have installer-armel/
> cleaned up?

Those actions sound appropriate to me, but I don't know the inner 
details well enough to see if there are traps set out.

Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.kernel

csiph-web