[fedora-arm] 48-bit support in F26?

[Jon Masters]

Hi Jeremy, all,

I was just catching up with some folks and we discussed the status of
48-bit VA support. It seems to me that it would make most sense to have
an official coordination effort between those vendors/community members
who are interested, to ensure that they help with the necessary package
updates ahead of the kernel, and work with a test kernel to identify any
additional packages or issues that need resolving. I believe it would
make most sense to have a Fedora feature page (or something less grand,
but similar in concept) tracking this for F26, with the deps.

Perhaps Jeremy can update us on the status, and then he and others can
help drive this forward (someone should nominate themselves as the ring
leader too). I spoke with Cavium earlier today, and I know they'll be
keen to help. I know Qualcomm had expressed interest during our IRC
meetings in helping out. To that end, I'm copying at least those I know
so far who are interested here.

Jon.

[Josh Boyer]

Post by Jon Masters
Hi Jeremy, all,
I was just catching up with some folks and we discussed the status of
48-bit VA support. It seems to me that it would make most sense to have
an official coordination effort between those vendors/community members
who are interested, to ensure that they help with the necessary package
updates ahead of the kernel, and work with a test kernel to identify any
additional packages or issues that need resolving. I believe it would
make most sense to have a Fedora feature page (or something less grand,
but similar in concept) tracking this for F26, with the deps.

I would very much advocate for the full Feature page. It will get the
change the appropriate attention technically, and it will raise
awareness of Aarch64 within Fedora from a general sense.

josh

[Jon Masters]

Great - that was my preference just didn't want to overkill it. But this sounds like good test run of doing the process the right way...
--
Computer Architect | Sent from my 64-bit #ARM Powered phone

Post by Josh Boyer

Post by Jon Masters
Hi Jeremy, all,
I was just catching up with some folks and we discussed the status of
48-bit VA support. It seems to me that it would make most sense to have
an official coordination effort between those vendors/community members
who are interested, to ensure that they help with the necessary package
updates ahead of the kernel, and work with a test kernel to identify any
additional packages or issues that need resolving. I believe it would
make most sense to have a Fedora feature page (or something less grand,
but similar in concept) tracking this for F26, with the deps.

I would very much advocate for the full Feature page. It will get the
change the appropriate attention technically, and it will raise
awareness of Aarch64 within Fedora from a general sense.
josh

[Peter Lemenkov]

Hello All!

couchdb-0:1.6.1-16.fc25.x86_64

...

erlang-js-0:1.3.0-7.fc25.x86_64

I've got patches (mostly untested) for building erlang-js with mozjs170.

https://github.com/basho/erlang_js/pull/44#issuecomment-247323892

I'll take a look on CouchDB soon.

[Jon Masters]

Post by Peter Lemenkov
Hello All!

couchdb-0:1.6.1-16.fc25.x86_64

...

erlang-js-0:1.3.0-7.fc25.x86_64

I've got patches (mostly untested) for building erlang-js with mozjs170.
https://github.com/basho/erlang_js/pull/44#issuecomment-247323892

Hi Peter,
I've been submitting patches to pull everything forward to at least
mozjs24 which is where gnome/etc are. Would it be possible to push from
17 to 24, because if erlang lands on mozjs17 when polkit gets moved to
24, then again mozjs17 will have a single dependency in fedora.
That said, it looks like gnome are trying to move again, but they are
too moving to mozjs31, just as 0ad leaves it.

Any chance you can wire up a feature page for F26 with this in it?

Going forward, I would /also/ like to be 52-bit VA tolerant. I realized
that since ARMv8.2 is now public, we can at least discuss on this list
that longer term there might be some server systems needing 52-bit
support as well (which is optional, so it'll depend upon cleaver kernel
enablement - likely with a optional 4th page directory that
transparently folds onto the pud or something) so we should at least
make sure we're tolerant toward that later on.

Jon.

[Peter Lemenkov]

Post by Peter Lemenkov
Hello All!

couchdb-0:1.6.1-16.fc25.x86_64

...

erlang-js-0:1.3.0-7.fc25.x86_64

I've got patches (mostly untested) for building erlang-js with mozjs170.
https://github.com/basho/erlang_js/pull/44#issuecomment-247323892

Hi Peter,
I've been submitting patches to pull everything forward to at least mozjs24
which is where gnome/etc are. Would it be possible to push from 17 to 24,
because if erlang lands on mozjs17 when polkit gets moved to 24, then again
mozjs17 will have a single dependency in fedora.

Working on it. The main issue is that they switched to C++, as well as
API change. I've got a version which compiles but segfaults during the
unit-tests.

That said, it looks like gnome are trying to move again, but they are too
moving to mozjs31, just as 0ad leaves it.

Mozjs versions zoo is a mess :)
Still better than v8 API as I was told :)

[Peter Lemenkov]

Post by Peter Lemenkov
Hello All!

couchdb-0:1.6.1-16.fc25.x86_64

...

erlang-js-0:1.3.0-7.fc25.x86_64

I've got patches (mostly untested) for building erlang-js with mozjs170.

A short update on that - I've just updated erlang-js to build against
mozjs24. So one TODO item is completed.

Post by Peter Lemenkov
https://github.com/basho/erlang_js/pull/44#issuecomment-247323892
I'll take a look on CouchDB soon.
--
With best regards, Peter Lemenkov.