On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:00 PM Donatom M <donatom.martino(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > How do I do that. I thought it would be automatic. Reply All. > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 12:20 PM Peter Robinson <pbrobinson(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> >> Please leave the mailing list on replied. >> >> > I would agree that fedora 34 arm has some disadvantages when run on Raspberry Pi 4 with xorg server. I have fedora installed onto a SSD drive. As another member mentioned, I have found that audio does not work out of the box. I have not tried to get audio to work because audio was not important to me on this build. I would hope that Raspberry Pi support and fedora-arm would work on remedying the few problems that exist. >> > >> > I would like to note that I also have Archlinux-Arm with X server on an SD card (128 GiG) and everything works without any problem at all, so I would think that if Arch-ARM can build a system that is fully functional on Raspberry Pi 4, so can Fedora-ARM. All of my systems are running 64 bit with Raspberry Pi 4, by the way. >> >> Archlinux-Arm uses the downstream Raspberry Pi fork of the kernel. >> >> > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 1:32 AM Peter Robinson <pbrobinson(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> On this page it states that the RPi4 is not supported. >> >> >> >> That is correct, there's a very large cavernous gap between "may work >> >> for a number of purposes including yours" and something that will work >> >> for the vast majority of users. >> >> >> >> The core "supported" status will change when the standard GUI runs >> >> fully accelerated and users have WiFi/sound and the things that are >> >> associated with a reasonable desktop experience as that's the default >> >> means a lot of new users expect. That's what I, as the RPi maintainer, >> >> did when we introduced "supported" RPi3. Any less than that the >> >> support queries are too high. >> >> >> >> > >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures/ARM/Raspberry_Pi#Raspberry_Pi_4 >> >> > > >> >> > > yes the statement about hardware support isn't quite correct anymore. >> >> > > But there is still a noticeable difference between the mainline kernel >> >> > > (which Fedora uses) and the vendor kernel from the Raspberry Pi Foundation. >> >> > > >> >> > > Most notably are: >> >> > > - audio support >> >> > > - V3D support >> >> >> >> Those two are critical. >> >> >> >> > An update to say clearly that only server/headless worked then would better the. The blanket “it does not work”. I is only that I looked deeper that I found out that it >> >> > might work. >> >> >> >> The Wiki page explicitly does not say "it does not work" it says it's >> >> not supported. The words are chosen specifically. By saying it's >> >> supported a user can rock up when something doesn't work and ask for >> >> support or assistance, if something breaks we block the release etc. >> >> By saying it's not supported a user may try it and if it works for >> >> them great, but if it breaks while we'll attempt to fix it that may >> >> take time and it may not get fixed. >> >> >> >> > Oh and would need a warning that the boot is very slow. >> >> > I see a black screen for a couple of minutes before I see any output >> >> > from the kernel or systemd. >> >> >> >> Oh look, a user asking for "support".... see my points above! >> >> >> >> > > A lot users doesn't accept this. Instead of blaming the vendor to focus >> >> > > on its own kernel branch, they blame Fedora for using the mainline >> >> > > kernel. So that's the reason to say it's not officially supported. >> >> >> >> It's one reason, but not the only ones. >> >> >> >> > >> There a lots of messages in this mailing archieve showing that people are >> >> > >> getting Fedora to work on RPi4. >> >> >> >> Yes, and that's the idea, a more advanced user will be able to >> >> ascertain it works, and it has for a *long* time and likely be able to >> >> do most of what they want to do. >> >> >> >> > >> Is there still a reason to claim its not supported? >> >> > >> If so what should I be watching out for/avoiding with the RPi4? >> >> > > For a headless / server setup there shouldn't be no general issues. >> >> >> >> For a headless server it should be fine, but a general user comes via >> >> Fedora Workstation and expect and accelerated desktop and sound and we >> >> don't have them working ATM. >> >> >> >> Peter >> >> - The Fedora Raspberry Pi "maintainer" >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> arm mailing list -- arm(a)lists.fedoraproject.org >> >> To unsubscribe send an email to arm-leave(a)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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Someone on this thread mentioned that Archlinux-ARM uses raspberry pi linux kernel. That might be for the 32 bit version but when you are running 64 bit on the raspberry pi it seems that the kernel is a regular linux kernel for ARM architecture. [url] https://kiljan.org/2021/05/28/64-bit-arch-linux-arm-on-a-raspberry-pi-4-m... [/url] I bring this up because I believe Fedora ARM could use the same kernel (non-raspberry pi modified) and thereby get all features (audio, etc.) working out of the box.

I just restarted my fedora-arm system on raspberry pi 4 after days of using another system and found that the sound does in fact work (I shut off all devices but my bluetooth speaker in the pavucontrol configuration window -- misconfiguration in pavucontrol likely was the reason I could not get audio to work before). So I would say that the mainline fedora-ARM aarch64 kernel is functioning pretty well on my system: video works well as does audio, all usb ports work (usb 2 and 3) and I am able to start up on an SSD with no problem. Wifi and bluetooth have been functional out of the box. The system does take about two minute to boot up. I am using openbox with full xorg capability. It seems that there is a good case for stating that raspberry pi 4B is supported by the fedora-ARM 64 bit kernel (aarch64) on the Fedora-ARM wiki. Now perhaps things don't work as well on a Fedora Workstation which is very bloated -- I don't know but I do know that on a less demanding system (like openbox), everything seems to be running well. On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 9:21 AM Peter Robinson <pbrobinson(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 5:14 PM Donatom M <donatom.martino(a)gmail.com&gt; > wrote: > > > > Someone on this thread mentioned that Archlinux-ARM uses raspberry pi > linux kernel. That might be for the 32 bit version but when you are running > 64 bit on the raspberry pi it seems that the kernel is a regular linux > kernel for ARM architecture. [url] > https://kiljan.org/2021/05/28/64-bit-arch-linux-arm-on-a-raspberry-pi-4-m... > [/url] > > > > I bring this up because I believe Fedora ARM could use the same kernel > (non-raspberry pi modified) and thereby get all features (audio, etc.) > working out of the box. > > As the maintainer I've already investigated that, if it's "working" > it's not an upstream kernel as not all things are upstream. One of the > upstream maintainers commented explicitly on that earlier in the > thread. It's not like I don't actually read just about all of the > upstream kernel commits for each cycle to see what changes. > > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 3:52 PM Donatom M <donatom.martino(a)gmail.com&gt; > wrote: > >> > >> Okay. Thanks, Peter. > >> > >> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 1:07 PM Peter Robinson <pbrobinson(a)gmail.com&gt; > wrote: > >>> > >>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:00 PM Donatom M <donatom.martino(a)gmail.com&gt; > wrote: > >>> > > >>> > How do I do that. I thought it would be automatic. > >>> > >>> Reply All. > >>> > >>> > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 12:20 PM Peter Robinson < > pbrobinson(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> Please leave the mailing list on replied. > >>> >> > >>> >> > I would agree that fedora 34 arm has some disadvantages when run > on Raspberry Pi 4 with xorg server. I have fedora installed onto a SSD > drive. As another member mentioned, I have found that audio does not work > out of the box. I have not tried to get audio to work because audio was not > important to me on this build. I would hope that Raspberry Pi support and > fedora-arm would work on remedying the few problems that exist. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > I would like to note that I also have Archlinux-Arm with X > server on an SD card (128 GiG) and everything works without any problem at > all, so I would think that if Arch-ARM can build a system that is fully > functional on Raspberry Pi 4, so can Fedora-ARM. All of my systems are > running 64 bit with Raspberry Pi 4, by the way. > >>> >> > >>> >> Archlinux-Arm uses the downstream Raspberry Pi fork of the kernel. > >>> >> > >>> >> > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 1:32 AM Peter Robinson < > pbrobinson(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >> On this page it states that the RPi4 is not supported. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> That is correct, there's a very large cavernous gap between > "may work > >>> >> >> for a number of purposes including yours" and something that > will work > >>> >> >> for the vast majority of users. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> The core "supported" status will change when the standard GUI > runs > >>> >> >> fully accelerated and users have WiFi/sound and the things that > are > >>> >> >> associated with a reasonable desktop experience as that's the > default > >>> >> >> means a lot of new users expect. That's what I, as the RPi > maintainer, > >>> >> >> did when we introduced "supported" RPi3. Any less than that the > >>> >> >> support queries are too high. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures/ARM/Raspberry_Pi#Raspberry_Pi_4 > >>> >> >> > > > >>> >> >> > > yes the statement about hardware support isn't quite > correct anymore. > >>> >> >> > > But there is still a noticeable difference between the > mainline kernel > >>> >> >> > > (which Fedora uses) and the vendor kernel from the > Raspberry Pi Foundation. > >>> >> >> > > > >>> >> >> > > Most notably are: > >>> >> >> > > - audio support > >>> >> >> > > - V3D support > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> Those two are critical. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > An update to say clearly that only server/headless worked > then would better the. The blanket “it does not work”. I is only that I > looked deeper that I found out that it > >>> >> >> > might work. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> The Wiki page explicitly does not say "it does not work" it > says it's > >>> >> >> not supported. The words are chosen specifically. By saying it's > >>> >> >> supported a user can rock up when something doesn't work and > ask for > >>> >> >> support or assistance, if something breaks we block the release > etc. > >>> >> >> By saying it's not supported a user may try it and if it works > for > >>> >> >> them great, but if it breaks while we'll attempt to fix it that > may > >>> >> >> take time and it may not get fixed. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Oh and would need a warning that the boot is very slow. > >>> >> >> > I see a black screen for a couple of minutes before I see any > output > >>> >> >> > from the kernel or systemd. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> Oh look, a user asking for "support".... see my points above! > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > > A lot users doesn't accept this. Instead of blaming the > vendor to focus > >>> >> >> > > on its own kernel branch, they blame Fedora for using the > mainline > >>> >> >> > > kernel. So that's the reason to say it's not officially > supported. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> It's one reason, but not the only ones. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >> There a lots of messages in this mailing archieve showing > that people are > >>> >> >> > >> getting Fedora to work on RPi4. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> Yes, and that's the idea, a more advanced user will be able to > >>> >> >> ascertain it works, and it has for a *long* time and likely be > able to > >>> >> >> do most of what they want to do. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >> Is there still a reason to claim its not supported? > >>> >> >> > >> If so what should I be watching out for/avoiding with the > RPi4? > >>> >> >> > > For a headless / server setup there shouldn't be no general > issues. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> For a headless server it should be fine, but a general user > comes via > >>> >> >> Fedora Workstation and expect and accelerated desktop and sound > and we > >>> >> >> don't have them working ATM. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> Peter > >>> >> >> - The Fedora Raspberry Pi "maintainer" > >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ > >>> >> >> arm mailing list -- arm(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > >>> >> >> To unsubscribe send an email to > arm-leave(a)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 on the list, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure >

I just restarted my fedora-arm system on raspberry pi 4 after days of using another system and found that the sound does in fact work (I shut off all devices but my bluetooth speaker in the pavucontrol configuration window -- misconfiguration in pavucontrol likely was the reason I could not get audio to work before). So I would say that the mainline fedora-ARM aarch64 kernel is functioning pretty well on my system: video works well as does audio, all usb ports work (usb 2 and 3) and I am able to start up on an SSD with no problem. Wifi and bluetooth have been functional out of the box.