ArmV8 / Aarch64 / ARM64... what would it take?

Want a new feature? Discuss what you would like to see in Ultibo.
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 1850
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 3:49 am
Location: Australia

Re: ArmV8 / Aarch64 / ARM64... what would it take?

Postby Ultibo » Fri May 18, 2018 12:03 am

Gavinmc42 wrote:Bit more on the 64 to 32 bit pointer issue for the VC4.
Fixable in Paul's OMXMMAL code?

You have to remember that the use of 32 bit pointers is intrinsically woven into almost every layer of the userland code and cannot be easily fixed by simple changes to header definitions.

It seems to be possible but it requires someone to do the heavy lifting of checking and adjusting every element of the interaction between the CPU and GPU, so far no one seems to have taken that on. | Make something amazing
Posts: 1303
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2016 12:38 pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: ArmV8 / Aarch64 / ARM64... what would it take?

Postby Gavinmc42 » Fri May 18, 2018 1:00 am

Just starting playing with Fedora28 Aarch64, like Gentoo64 it uses the V3D stuff ... berry_Pi_3 ... in-fedora/

Both are now using the mainstream Linux driver and Eric Anholt has even more going into 4.18
This is in config.txt for both

Code: Select all

# This isn't used by mainline VC4 driver so reduce to lowest supported value

How do we use the Linux V3D mainstream code in Ultibo?
As source reference or called lib?
Thinking ahead to Pi4/5, VC5/6, Vulkan too.
Other architectures/SBC's will also use KVM, DRM, V3D/Vulkan at least for the foreseeable future.

I use Ultibo because I find Linux hard to understand, use, maintain etc...... plus it is bloatware for my single purpose apps.

Running Ultibo on other SBC's that have other GPU's will be hard unless we use existing methods that someone else has figured out ;)
Anyway just something to think about after all those status boxes are green :D

Return to “Feature requests”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests